Martin A - save your keystrokes. If BB really wanted to know, he'd drop RW a 'curious' email of enquiry.

BB,

"James Evans, a dislike of being called 'deniers' is a basic tenet of many on the Hill. They are, they claim, 'sceptical', denying nothing, only questioning. And isn't that healthy and necessary and good? I originally gave people the benefit of the doubt - maybe they are just sceptical. But discussions such as this thread show me that the fabric of scepticism really is woven with the thread of denial.

One might expect denial of the science, and that certainly exists here in spades. But people like to cloak themselves in the coat of scientific respectability, questioning the details of sciences that only a few might understand sufficiently. What I find more surprising is that so much denial is peripheral to the real questions of whether climate change is real and should be a cause for concern. There's denial of any honest cost-benefit analysis of fossil fuels - there are no costs, only benefits; there's your and others' denial of the relationships that exist in politics and business; there's denial that sceptics might be nasty and might send rude emails, epitomized by petty FOI requests; there's even denial within denial; denial that anyone else denies the science of greenhouse gasses."

Ummm. This seems to be a braindump. It is useful, in that perhaps I understand a little better who it is that I'm talking to. But it doesn't address what we were talking about, except in the flabbiest terms. Perhaps I could pluck one relevent bit from your essay on denialistalism:

"there's your and others' denial of the relationships that exist in politics and business"

I'm denying the relationships that exist in politics and business? When I ask for details, I get heavy sarcasm followed by a spiel on all the things that deniers deny.

Do you understand that providing evidence might actually work? Do you really think that sarcasm will work? Do you think that writing an essay on the awfulness of denialism will work?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve here? Are you just trying to irritate people who you disagree with, or are you actually trying to change minds?

"I find this bewildering and often ask myself whether these people really believe what they write, or whether they are purposefully dissembling just to win arguments. Do you really believe there to be no connection between US pols and the businesses they protect? The connections are clear to see, the campaign donations published, at least to some extent. Is it possible for you to be so untouched by the real world that you need me to name names before you'll be convinced."

Do I need you to name names?

That would be the whole point. Name those names, make the whole thing utterly explicit. If there's a huge conspiracy going on here, then show me for f*ck's sake. Your argument so far is this:

1) There's a conspiracy between Big Oil and scepticism.

2) You don't believe me? Yeah, right! Like there's no conspiracy. None. OK, sure, there's NO conspiracy, you're right I'm sure. /sarc

3) You still don't believe me? But you're a denier! And deniers deny. You are denying this just like you deny everything, you denying denier.

"Why the dissembling? If any of you stood to gain from what you proclaim here then it would be understandable. But I really don't believe it to be that simple - I really do believe you acting of your own volition. And that leaves me really puzzled."

That's because you don't like the idea that people just as smart as you, just as informed as you, who haven't been bought by BIG OIL, simply evaluate the evidence differently to you.

James Evans, will it work, you ask. For you? No. For Mike Jackson? Most definitely not. For Martin, Hillary, Tiny or Geronimo undoubtedly not. If I manage to provoke you into revealing your closed-mindedness, that is some small compensation for the effort. But you are a vocal minority. There are certainly others who don't need to be shown a picture of the door to know where the exit is, who don't deny the obvious, who are aware that the sceptic arguments promoted here are more nuanced than the zealots would have then believe.

The silent majority aren't even listening to you or the other anti fossil fuel evangelists.

BB,

"If I manage to provoke you into revealing your closed-mindedness, that is some small compensation for the effort."

In other words you are a troll.

Engaging with you was a waste of time. You will put this down to my "closed-mindedness". But... you haven't even tried to present any evidence to support your point of view.

James Evans, "Engaging with you was a waste of time", yeah but you enjoyed it really. Go on, admit it!

Yes. I did. :)