They just refuse to accept it, no matter what data is put before their eyes! These guys are like kids who will not eat their vegetables. The offensive veggies are right in front of them but the kiddies cross their arms and scrunch their eyes shut and scream rudely, “If I can’t see them I won’t eat them!”
But, as The Conversation so eloquently shows, it could all go dreadfully wrong for the Denialists.
On one side would be essentially the whole of the scientific community, on the other would be the climate change sceptics, who would be required to make a case for their belief. On one side would be the accumulated theory and evidence of man made climate change. On the other would be the vacuity of Lord Monckton and Co. declaring that the science is wrong or undecided.
As an aside here, anyone who says that the “science of climate change is undecided” as Tony Abbott has, is demonstrating a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry. Of course it is not decided — science is never “decided”. Scientific theories are always contestable. If you can bring to ongoing scientific discourse a better explanation to observed phenomena, or better observations, then your theory or observations will (eventually) displace the dominant theory. The science of climate change is not settled — yes, we can all agree on that.