Joe Romm has an excellent one, that takes Vaclav Klaus's Marxists in green clothing argument and argues that, after actually accounting for science, climate delusionism actually is a very good way to promote centralization and gigantic government.
I have noticed other cases of them casually or earnestly getting things backward. Each could be the subject of an article. Temperature leads CO2 in the Antarctic ice cores, therefore no worries (umm?? You like positive feedbacks?) Past natural climate variations were large therefore no worries (umm?? You think it is good news that the system is precariously balanced in a comfortable regime?) Matters are far more uncertain than IPCC claims therefore no worries (umm??? you like making the risk-weighted outcome even worse?) and so on.
I'd just like to point out a small example for now, a case where no less than the Free Republic site follows in the footsteps of the National Post in celebrating what is intended as an alarmist point of view. The author of the denialist-celebrated point of view, by the way, has also written a brief celebration of what he calls "post-autistic economics", a name which I dislike, because in all seriousness it strikes me as unnecessarily unkind to autistics as well as conventional economists.
I doubt, though, that this is what the delusionist camps have in mind. Personally I think the cure Orrell is pushing is worse than the disease, but that's neither here nor there. What we see is another example of how weak the reading abilities and reasoning abilities of the delusionist camp are. Anyone, anyone willing to say a word against climate science is surely an ally, right, because it is science that is at fault here, right? Any enemy of climate science must be a friend of theirs.
If, by some chance, you wanted to make a coherent skeptical case you would need to argue
- climate is well understood
- greenhouse gases matter very little on Earth for some reason
- the recent warming is well understood and attributable to other forces, including in the vertical and horizontal distributions which match climate model predictions
Alternatively there is this simpler goal. Demonstrate that it is possible to construct a climate model of comparable or better quality to what we have that has dramatically lower greenhouse gas sensitivity. Computers are cheap these days and decent compilers are free. Go to it.
Delusionists take neither of these paths. Instead, their arguments are almost invariably specious. There is only one way to understand this that I can see, and it has two simple parts. 1) They are wrong and 2) they don't seriously care whether they are wrong or not. The second part is very disturbing, though. It's hard to understand people taking such risks with the future consciously.
At best they have convinced themselves of their nonsense. It's worth thinking about how that is possible.