I put it to him that libertarians hold that liberty means that they have an inalienable right to live a high carbon lifestyle if they choose to do so, and this means that AGW (anthropogenic global warming, which demands that we drop our high carbon lifestyle) must be untrue.
SOJG disagreed with this construction, and claimed that his rejection of AGW was based on reason.
I asked him to answer five questions on AGW without obfuscation or evasion.
The rationale for these five questions is that they summarise the cognitive steps that a scientist takes in arriving at the conclusion that AGW is a problem. They show how science constructs its case. Science is not an endless chaotic intellectual brawl, it is a careful reconstruction of what is happening out there in reality.
He agreed to answer, under conditions which he sets out here http://tl.gd/n_1s15ruq.
My conditions are that there should be, as well as no obfuscation and no equivocation, no unpleasantness and no red herrings.
Five questions for a climate change denier.
I ask SOJG to take them one at a time for the sake of clarity and avoidance of obfuscation.
1) Do you agree that the Greenhouse Effect exists, and that it keeps our home planet some 30C warmer than it otherwise would be?
2) Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG)?
3) Do you agree that human activities have so far increased CO2 levels by about 40% relative to pre-industrial levels?
4) Do you agree that doubling of CO2 levels will raise Earth surface temperatures (T) by some 1.2C?
5) Do you agree that this 1.2C increase will induce positive feedback mechanisms that will give further increases, leading to an equilibrium range of T that includes the value 2C?
So. Off we go.