RealClimate had a good entry the other day on how dealing with deniers is like Groundhog Day (the movie). They come up with some lame argument, we disprove it, then a few days later they just keep repeating the same argument as if it had never been disproven.
Eric c reminds me of that. He's still making the tropical troposphere hot spot argument even though I've explained to him several times (including via email) that it's not an anthropogenic signal, and even wrote Myth #14 on the subject. Not only is he still arguing it's an anthropogenic signal, but now he's arguing it's the "first sign" of anthropogenic warming. So not only has he not learned anything, now he's making up even more false claims on the subject.
I don't know who's more frustrating now - guys like eric who pretend to have an open mind and try to make scientific arguments, but in reality aren't the least bit interested in learning anything, guys like jim who think they know it all because they took a few geology classes, or the people who constantly cite political websites as their only sources for climate science information. To me I think guys like eric are the least tolerable, because they pretend to be open minded, so you waste a bunch of time trying to explain the science to them, and in the end it's like talking to a brick wall.
So I guess eric has gone from my most to least tolerable denier, and gcnp was right.
There is no such thing as a climate skeptic who is trying to learn and understand. They all just say that to appear objective and provide what is a very transparent cover for the fact that their minds are made up. People who are actually trying to learn and understand don't make a big deal about it, they just go out and read things.
Edited by dana1981 - 6/10/2009 at 07:18 pm GMT