Global warming deniers are dime a dozen in comments posted on the web, probably second only to the rash of Zionist trolls trying to attack the Palestine solidarity movement. From the ignorant to the wilfully misleading, these deniers rarely manage to dent the confidence of someone with a good grasp of how the greenhouse effect works. But then, we aren't their target.
While Strangelovian global warming deniers scream about science and "proof", evidence continues to mount for global warming and its effects. Many of these fools seem to think that "proof" like a logical, mathematical equation can be found for complex ecological and biological sciences. We have a mountain of evidence and its stupid to ignore evidence, but some do because they are only interested in logical "proof".
I find very few global warming deniers ever make much scientific sense on the greenhouse effect itself, they just talk about tenuously related and unrelated phenomena like solar activity. But which part of the greenhouse effect and it's impacts do they actually disagree with? Try and get a sensible (or consistent) answer on that from this motley crew, with their feel-good eyewash.
Do they disagree that there is a greenhouse effect? That gases such as CO2 contribute to it? Do they simply disagree with scientists over the amount of climate forcing that a given increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause? Do they even know how much warming is caused (without any additional forcings) by the current or projected increases in atmospheric CO2 (over pre-industrial levels)? Do they even understand the chemistry of burning a tonne of coal or oil and how that transfers sequestered carbon from its inert subterranean rest into a greenhouse gas?
The greenhouse effect deniers are, as the popular book puts it, "Merchants of Doubt". Throw any amount of doubt into the discussion, hope you will dissuade a few people from trying to understand or face global warming, it doesn't matter if you chuck in any old lie or barely relevant weather phenomenon or meaningless anecdotes, as long as you sow seeds of doubt among those not convinced.
It's a political ruse that supports the fossil fuel industries' needs, which has nothing to do with the science, in the final analysis. It's about going back to business as usual, living a consumer lifestyle as if nothing was going to happen and big business always acts in our best interests.