The folly of believing in a warming conspiracy

At the end of the day it is impossible to deny (though some still try) the overwhelming consensus of climate scientist that fully accept that our GHG emissions are causing the earth to warm. Therefore at the heart of most denier talking points lies some sort of conspiracy theory. That it is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the public. That climate scientists need to perpetuate fear in order to maintain their funding. Or that Al Gore is just pushing this to line his pockets, and other such nonsense. It is an idea that falls apart with even a modest amount of critical thinking and a very basic understanding of how science works. As Ken Caldeira points out:

There was a climate contrarian who testified before the Senate last week. He made the claim that climate scientists were some kind of club and they all made money by somehow supporting each other’s findings. The reality of science is that a scientific career is made by showing that all the people around you believe something that’s not true. If a scientist could provide evidence that the climate theory is incorrect and that global warming is not a product of human activities, he or she would be held up as the Darwin or the Einstein of climate science. We’re highly incentivized to show that all our colleagues are wrong. If we could come up with good evidence that they’re wrong, we would be out there publishing it. The evidence just doesn’t exist.

This point is further highlighted by the fact that a whole slew of deniers are famous (or is that infamous) precisely for being contrarians. Would we have heard of Tim Ball, Fred Singer, or Richard Lindzen if it weren’t for their denialism? Doubtful, for the most part they are (or were) unremarkable academics. The mere fact that we know who they are (and the amount money their denialism has made them) is evidence that the conspiracy theory is bogus.

But if that wasn’t enough, just think of the logistics involved in maintaining the climate conspiracy.