24 Responses to A new comment-response policy for deniers and delayers
Many readers of Climate Progress ask me why I
waste spend so much time rebutting people who post comments repeating the standard talking points of the delayer-1000s. Yes, I am aware those people can’t be convinced, but progressives are going to hear this disinformation for years to come, and so I think it is useful to see responses.
That said, most of the talking points have been well-debunked many times here as well as other places like RealClimate and Skeptical Science. So I’m not going to waste time doing that any more in the comments. I will, of course, take on new talking points — like the recent cooling nonsense (sometimes just to have some fun).
For the delayer-1000s who want to engage in a serious discussion, I would ask one of two things:
- Answer the key question of our time: “If you were running national and global climate policy, what level of global CO2 concentrations would be your goal and how would you achieve it?” No answer (or no answer beyond “wait for new technology“) means you are a Delayer-1000, someone who is prepared to see atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations hit 1000 ppm, which will nullify all denier talking points and end life on this planet as we know it. OR
- Take my bet: “$1000 says the next decade is hotter than this one. I’ll give you 2-to-1 odds.” Anyone who won’t take that bet — 2-to-1 odds is a gimme for anyone who spounts most of the delayer-1000 talking points, especially the cooling nonsense — doesn’t believe what they’re saying, and that means they are spreading disinformation. I won’t waste any time in the comments section debunking people who don’t even believe what they are saying. If $1000 is too steep, give me a counter offer. I’m also happy to take more bets on the Arctic being ice free by 2020.
If you won’t do one of those two things, then you either don’t care about the next 10 billion people to walk the Earth or you don’t believe what you are saying. Either way, a response would be a waste of time.
Now, in place of a detailed rebuttal in the comments, I’ll probably just post this link. Other readers may feel free to post this link in the comments also.