Okay, Sam, I’ve been polite too long. I’m going to mention the elephant.
“Elephant? What?” says Sam.
Yes, Sam. The secret shame of the denialists.
“What are you talking about?” asks Sam.
The fact, Sam, that you are utterly lacking in consistency. The fact, Sam, that not only don’t climate change deniers agree with the consensus scientific view on climate change, they don’t agree with each other, either.
“That’s not true,” says Sam.
No, Sam, it’s entirely true. You might be able to go to any one denier, and find consistency—although not that often. But once you get a roomful of deniers, you get as many different opinions as there are people in the room.
The deniers are the scientific party of “no.” They don’t agree with the mainstream of science. They don’t agree with each other. In fact, what one agrees to often cancels out what another agrees to. Taken together, denier scientists are incapable of releasing a statement of agreed-upon facts in relation to climate change, because the inconvenient truth is that they represent not one point of view, but dozens.
The only consistent thing about denier science is that it denies.
“You’re exaggerating,” says Sam.
If I am, Sam, then it ought to be really easy to contradict me.
“That’s right,” says Sam.
Then let them do it, Sam. I invite them. If they don’t want to do it here, on my site, let them do it anywhere. I’m throwing down the gauntlet, Sam. All by myself I am willing to take on the entire denial industry.
All the industry has to do to contradict me is come up with a consistent denier theory which covers and explains the known evidence, and which all the main denier scientists are willing to sign off on.
Otherwise, well, I win.