I spend lots of time arguing with Global Warming Skeptics and Oil Cornucopians at the blog Climate Etc. One commenter, "kim", known for one line responses is quite infuriating, but representative of the denialist culture. They can in turn claim that global warming is not happening but then assert that a little warming wouldn't hurt anyone.
An imaginary rise is beneficial to delusional folks such as kim. The rise would be good if it existed, but it doesn't exist to them. That's called a rationalization trick-box.
The problem with people like that is they have no self-awareness and can not even understand the inconsistencies that come out of their mouths.
Yes, some of us can look at the data and theories dispassionately and understand the statistics and science for what it is. Others can't, which includes the schleptics and the plausible deniers and that crowd.
This idea is elaborated on a post called "Meta-rationality" on John Carlos Baez's blog:
What is also troubling is the amount of gaming that goes on. It's meta-irrationality when you can no longer tell if the arguer is actually taking a real stance or is simply trying to prank the argument, either by becoming increasingly preposterous or silly.
I don’t know what to call this other than a kind of trolling prank that seems to be in vogue. There is certainly evidence that this exists based on ridiculous survey responses . It also occurs on TV shows such as Jay Leno where people intentionally appear as clueless or embarrassing as possible when asked questions on current events.
Typical (but fictional) dialog between Siri and a Plausible Denialist
Siri: The average global temperature is increasing.
PD = No it isn't.
Siri: But it is.
PD = Well that's good, as I like it warmer.
Siri: Glad to see you agree
PD = Only as far as it keeps us out of an ice age.
Siri: So you do accept GHG forcing?
PD = No
Siri: What other mechanism is halting the slide to the ice-age then?
PD = What is happening is irrelevant when you consider the emails.
Siri: What does that have to do with science?
PD = Feynman. At least he plays fair.
Siri: That is quite an accomplishment since last I heard he is dead.
PD = Chaos suggests that he could come back to life, as the death attractor is weak in comparison to the power and resiliency of the earth.
Siri: Well that is good to know, as we can harness that power with wind turbines and PV technology.
PD = That's no good -- too many birds and bats are killed
Siri: Is that something we can deal with?
PD = Not when it forces people to go hungry, as bat-meat is prized in certain cultures.
Siri: But the energy source is important too, is it not?
PD = Au contraire, we have endless fossil fuel supplies.
Siri: Wouldn't that cook us in terms of GHG generation?
PD = It is endless but within limits.
Siri: What you are saying is that alternatives will be within reach should the time come?
PD = Yes.
Siri: So you have smart guys working on this?
PD = Willis Eschenbach is street smart, as it takes street smarts to have sex with three women at the same time.
Siri: How do you know that?
PD = He told me hisself (SOURCE or Google it).
Siri: What else does he say?
PD = The GHG theory is wrong.
Siri: What are the alternate theories?
PD = There are dozens and dozens of them ... some guy keeps a list.
Siri: Among these dozens, they can't all be right, can they?
PD = Only empirical evidence can prove them wrong.
Siri: But lack of direct evidence is what you use to challenge the GHG theory.
PD = Only because climate scientists are incompetent and can't prove AGW in a laboratory setting, like Cavendish Labs in Cambridge using glass boxes and such.
Siri: Perhaps education can change that.
PD = Yes, we can lure Prof. Oliver Manuel out of retirement.
Siri: What do use as a lure?
PD = How dare you! This is civilized discourse.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Which are melting, BTW.