Update - see below.
I've had a strong message to lift my game from none other than Lucia Liljegren, who runs a blog somewhere in deniersville. The science I reported these past few days has not persuaded her of the following:
- That the Greenland ice sheets are quite unlikely to make a speedy "recovery" any time soon
- That CO2 really doesn't lag temperature by 800 years therefore climate science is not a hoax
- That NASA's OCO-2 team isn't really playing a giant hoax on the world
- That it really isn't insects and germs which are causing global warming
- That ocean pH really is dropping
- That temperatures in Finland really are rising
- That the warming in the UK really isn't being caused by sunshine
- That holidays really should be happy times
- That humans really can't be exonerated of the rise in atmospheric CO2
- That there really are such things as grassfires
- That Pat'n Chip really didn't do a good job with their poster at AGU
- That it really does get quite dark in the Arctic in the northern hemisphere winter
- That clouds are quite fascinating (I must add the second installment to that article)
BTW - This is a serious question. Here's a chance for you to have your say.
Update: Lucia has kindly responded on Twitter, but was unable to think of (or put into words) any suggestions for making it easier for her and other deniers to understand science. It may be that the problem isn't me after all. Or it could be that the blog format isn't suitable for some people. If I had the talent, I'd try comic strips. I remember one denier at HotCopper complaining that a science paper had too many words and not enough pictures - really and truly. They did.
Update2: Lucia has added two ideas - to pace myself - good tip. To not make snide remarks about Jim Steele's ongoing nasty baseless personal one-way vendetta with Camille Parmesan. I'll pass. She also said that writing ideas on Twitter is difficult. She hasn't yet twigged that she could write more than 140 characters here at HW. Which is a sort of tip - to try to factor in the intellectual capability and limited imagination of deniers when I write.