"Often, refuting denialist arguments focuses on scientific information – showing that temperatures are in fact rising, or that there is indeed a scientific consensus that human activity is responsible," says study co-author Peter Ellerton from the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project.
"We complement this approach by helping find the flaws in misinforming arguments and explain how the reasons they offer don't support their conclusions."
The team put the steps through their paces by applying them to 42 common claims made in opposition to climate science, and found logical fallacies in each of them.
Nothing gets through to hard core righty deniers.
None of this will stand a chance of working if the person doesn't want to believe. My nephew once asked my late partner (who was the director of a private school he once attended) to tell him why vegetarianism. She explained and he listened and couldn't disagree. He said "I could never be a vegetarian" and she replied "you don't want to be a vegetarian" and he agreed. I get into this all the time here and elsewhere. Talk about one's food choices or immigration and, boom, a brick wall. We are all guilty even myself sometimes and I constantly have to remind myself of this.