I think it would be more effective to recast the question in terms of politics. Perhaps something along these lines: “That’s like me asking you to explain why the outlines of your district are where they are — in 25 words or less.”

kano, I understand that deniers lie about what switching to clean energy will cost for their own nefarious political and economic purposes.

Even so, my point is that people who are used to self-indulgent unsustainable lifestyles WILL find adjusting “expensive” in the sense that, they are going to have to scale back if and when governments come to grips with climate change.

For instance, there will be water rationing in many places. People who have sprinkler systems are going to be forbidden to use them. The price of water will rise. Restrictions on plumbing fixtures will be mandated. That’s one of the sorts of “expenses” I meant.

If you follow the recent discoveries of geologists like Peter Ward, apparently the last time the planet was as warm as during the Triassic it was also nearly OXYGEN free. Yikes.

Google (”low oxygen” AND “Permian”) and be afraid.

Here’s how your analogy ought to run: All the competent climate-cancer experts recommend a treatment that is *NOT* expensive. It costs only 1/10 of 1% of your annual salary.

The problem is that you’ve raised a shortsighted and self-indulgent child, and this treatment will be “expensive and very painful” for some of your child’s playmates who have been selling him drugs (e.g, Exxon).

1: For Steven Chu to have more than 1 minute to deliver his answer.

2: For Barton to actually care about the correct answer.

Good observations though.

Arguing climate change with Barton is like arguing religion – his mind is made up with no chance of change.

Their response would be to wait 6 months, see what new advances have been wait. If none, wait another six months, etc etc.

Let’s suppose you take your child to the doctor and the doctor’s diagnosis is, “Your child has cancer and is going to die if we don’t immediately start a treatment regimen that is going to be expensive and very painful.” You don’t like that prospect so you take your child to another 99 doctors, all but one of whom graduated from major medical schools and practice at world-class facilities, and they all tell you the exact same thing – except for the one. He’s a chiropractor and he assures you that he can cure your child with vitamins and herbs.

What are you going to do with your child?

The denialist Rs are throwing out ludicrous questions, mostly from the denialist playbook written by CEI and the Chamber of Commerce, and appointing clowns to pretend they are credible witnesses. (The Right Honourable Christopher Walter Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley kind of says it all, doesn’t it?)

Steven Chu did not have to begin a 6-second tutorial on geology 101. And other respected scientists don’t have to put up with this crap any more either.

From now on, there should be one standard line that is used to call out these idiots. Any time
a really dumb, denialist, leading question is asked, the answer will be the same:

(I’m open to editorial suggestions here)

“In my expert opinion, that question is a dishonest, manipulative attempt to keep the public from knowing the truth about climate change, and, in the interest of protecting scientific integrity and my own self-respect as a scientist, I refuse to answer.”