Climate Change Denier Fantasy Tournament Starts Today

No one in this contest can touch Jim Inhofe as the top political climate realist. Go, Jim!

I can guarantee that the winner would have prevented from being in government by the application of a simple "no creationists ever" voting rule.

This is worse than the so-called World Series Baseball.

Where are the Aussies? And the Brits?

Here is James Inhofe, who Tom Harris describes as his "top political climate realist":

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - James Inhofe

I think we're jumping the gun here.

What are the contests?
What's at stake?
And, for the love of God, tell me we're playing NIPCC rules.

Isn't this one of those "fight to the death" matches, no holds barred, kind of things?

The only question is, who will perish first -- them or us?

Greg, it's '' global-warming-deniers'' NOT climate change deniers! Climate is in constant change, because H2O regulates the climate, as a shock absorber => cooler days / warmer nights. Absence of H2O -> hotter days / colder nights; that's bad climate. Anybody denying that climate is constantly changing - must be a collateral damage from the aggressive / misleading propaganda! Can you guys memorize that much: ''the honest people are denying that is any ''global'' warming; nothing to do with the climatic changes!!!
Climate is not perfect now - we can improve it on many places where is bad climate, by saving extra stormwater in new dams! Guys, repeat after me: -'' what do we want?! climate change! When do we want it?! NOW! What do we want?! climate change! When do we want it?! NOW!!! Very good, can you remember that? No ''climate change deniers'' no, no; that's just another dirty trick only...

example: as the moon is constantly orbiting around the earth - so is the climate changing constantly BUT: as the sun is not orbiting around the earth - same, is no global warming! confusing the sun's and moon's orbits is as stupid as confusing the phony ''global'' warming with climatic changes and freak weather = very naughty, naughty!

stephanthedenier, you really MUST break that bad habit of yours of saying "climate" when you really mean "weather"...

Here, let's fix that rant of yours:

"Weather is in constant change, because H2O [in the atmosphere affects] the weather, ... => cooler days / warmer nights. Absence of H2O [as is common in desert areas] -> hotter days / colder nights; that's bad weather. Anybody denying that weather is constantly changing – must be a collateral damage... nothing to do with the climatic changes!!!

Weather is not perfect now – we can improve it [i.e., water shortages due to global-warming induced droughts] in many places where is bad weather, by saving extra stormwater in new dams!

Example: as the moon is constantly orbiting around the earth – so is the weather changing constantly ... confusing the sun's and moon's orbits is as stupid as confusing 'weather' with 'climate' = very naughty, naughty!

As you say, "Very good, can you remember that?"

These deniers are so mind numbingly boring I can't believe it.

Some of their twisted logic is a fascinating glimpse into doublethink that borders on dissociative psychosis...

But most of it gets to be a repetitive bore of same-old, same-old 'talking points'. ::yawn::

@3. Gaz : Yes. We could add a few names as could England and the rest of the world. (Maybe another series?)

I wouldn't say I was proud - indeed quite the opposite, I'm ashamed to present y'all with this list of a few Aussie contenders for the Deniers fantasy tournament :

1. Ian Plimer, geologist, polemicst and author.

2. Andrew Bolt, "journalist", TV host and convicted racial vilifier,

3. Bob Carter, another old geology professor and prominent denialist author.

4. Alan Jones, not the 1980 F1 champ 1980 but radio shock jock also a race baiter who helped whip up the 2005 Cronulla riots among other claims to infamy.

& fifth and last but not least (well okay maybe intellectually speaking he's least) our own pitiful (& hopefully short-reigning) Prime Minister Tony Abbott who has famously declared that climate change was "crap" and that Co2 is "weightless!"

The Brits have Lord Monckton the Climate Klown plus the almost as ridiculous James Delingpole, another Lord this time a super rich mega-polluter Matt Ridley and I'm sure others as well.

I'd also like to see Marc Morano, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts and others listed in this too.

These all see to be politicians but, well, I guess we can't have everything and the Deniers in question will have to sit back drown their sorrows (along with all the low-lying areas of our planet) and mutter "Ah coulda been a contender!" under their breaths.

Unless there's going to be another round or three to come?

Imhofe the embarrassment first.
Rohrbacher the surfer who should know better second.

I dont see my name in the contestants. Come on guys. Being so one sided is gaaaaaaaayyyyyy.

"These deniers are so mind numbingly boring I can’t believe it."

Which is why STD gets his comments stuffed into the Borehole at RealClimate. You have to wonder what his mother did to him to make him such a weenie.

Due to his comment at the start of all this, shouldn't Tom Harris be given a late high seed? After all, his comment was mind numbingly stupid, even for him. Wonder how much he got paid for it.

I think the finals should be held on a small float of ice, far from land.

With a hungry polar bear on theiceberg.

@ ^ Dean & john1 : LOL. Definitely seconded by me!

@13. barack obama : Maybe because Obama isn't a denier and instead actually understands the need to take action here? As likewise most Democratic pollies and voters do. Climate Change Denial does seem to be strongly associated with the ultra-conservatives esp the far right of the LNP here and the Republicans over in the US of A.

People have proposed various worthies, but perhaps it was not obvious that this contest was dedicated to members of the US Congress?

However i do think there might gave been more randomization to lessen early knockouts. That South/Central conferebce is very tough.

Interesting language for a title. When the global warming alarm bell was rung, the opposing view point said the climate changes - always has and always will.

Now the left hijacks the phrase climate change and says their opposition doesn't believe in it. Kind of sneaky and underhanded for a supposedly science-minded group.

[Alertin:

The left has nothing to do with this. It may be that among those who understand something about science and accept the idea that good science should inform our policy, you will find more liberals and progressives. This simply indicates that liberals and progressives are on average a bit smarter, or more honest, or less politically motivated, than those who reject science from the right. I recommend that if people on the right don't want to look less intelligent or less honest, or less like they are making things up for political reasons, that they stop pointing this out.

Also, to the extent that this has become a left-right issue, this has been a function of activism on the right. The right very purposefully and with nefarious intent grabbed the "let's make illegal the use of the word climate change rather than dealing with climate change" idea, and other similar idiotic positions. So, claiming that understanding and working with science is a left issue is not a claim that the left is doing something wrong. It is a sad admission that the right is doing something wrong. So, again, I recommend not doing that.

I suspect that this is related somehow to the mean-spirited and angry part of being a modern rightist. Denying science has economic benefits to those who do so, though oddly the average science denier loses this game and gets little or nothing out of it. (Follow the money, Alertin, and see how blatantly you are being used by your keepers.) But the mean spirited part might be the attraction, the thing that makes it worth it to you. Deny health benefits to as many people as possible. Control women's decision making. Ensure that a warped and ill conceived view of "the right to bear arms" leads to the death of thousands of teenagers a year. And so on. Not addressing climate change is another version of this destructive way of doing things. This is the part, Alertin, that makes you a bad person.

But you being a bad person is not why you are wrong about climate change. In this case you have made a claim about the use of the term "climate change." You are wrong, and your wrongness must be intentional because this discussion has been settled ages ago. For more information on that see this entry in my FAQ: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/about/#globalwarming_climatechange

Thank you very much for your comment.

-gtl]