Some might say "infamous" is a better description of Curry: see sourcewatch.
The denier handbook is full of easily-addressed propaganda that people keep repeating over and over hoping attrition over scientific integrity will win. They're tired and old.....
The peer review process exposes one's work to the whole global community of experts who would like nothing more than to rip apart someone else's work. From my time in academics, I know this to be true, so when papers stand the test of time you know it's not for lack of attempts to discredit them. The assertions from the denier camp however are shown over and over to fail even the simplest of scientific scrutiny and are often supported (like Judith Curry!!) by the oil and gas industry. As she has shown, denying climate change makes you good money. And with the billions spent on denial propaganda, there's a lot to be made in it! Follow the money indeed.....
Who is denying climate change? Climate changes, as has been stated repeatedly in this string. The questions now are about is it really man made, and is there really anything to be done about it? Have you forgotten that the original "hockey stick" was shown to be a little trickery of statistics, and agreed in upon in a series of emails by academics in Great Britain and a few other major universities.
A few billion dollars in propaganda as you described is a pittance compared to the $10 - $16 TRILLION dollars proposed to be spent when the only result was admitted to be almost zero change. According to a NASA atmospheric researcher who spoke to our group a few weeks ago, we really don't even know the effect of sun spots and solar impact as Earth goes through it's eliptical orbit. No model has accurately predicted climate events so far, and right now, we know that CO2 increase has actually promoted forestation.
Nitrogen in solid form as in fertilizer does indeed pollute the oceans and other waterways, but it is also allowing us to feed most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth. Would you like to pick the people who starve without that fertilizer? It is surely a problem, but like switching completely away from hydrocarbon fuels, it has a tremendous downside for billions of people stuck in poverty. Will you choose which of them will go without any modern wonders, like heat, light, realistic transportation?
The Paris Accord so vaunted by man-made climate change junkies, completely failed to address the ever increasing pollution and CO2 output of China, India, Indonesia, the LDC countries in Africa in particular, but LDCs all over the earth.
Why would you trust the fairy tale believers who proposed and back the Paris Accord to set out your, or anyone's future. There well may be some breakthroughs in power generation, hydrogen and fusion, for example, but fusion power has been a science toy that has eaten tens of billions and still can't be contained well enough to utilize. Hudrogen is incredibly unstable and difficult to store and move around. Want to be in a hydrogen powered vehicle during one of the 200 car pileups? So, we'll plant trees in the mean time, but in the US West, water is short, so they burn and when they do, they pump massive amounts of CO2 and real pollutants and particles into the atmosphere. So maybe there's reason to doubt the fairy tale of solving the issue by throwing money at it.
Curse those who think that shouting down critical thinkers by accusing them of being "climate deniers," because the accusers are shutting down the alternatives that MUST be explored in order to come up with something that's affordable without cutting off 2 or 3 billion humans from all the good stuff of life.
Meanwhile, we are all pretty dependent on fossil fuels and the like for now. What's wrong with taking time to figure out something that really works for everyone. Or, we could just spend ourselves into oblivian and join the impoverished all over the planet who haven't had the good fortune to have energy and food enough to lift them out of back breaking, life shortening starvation and grinding poverty.
Are YOU ready to live cheek by jowl in packed slums like Rio or Bombay? Or are you really happy to have that be the fate of billions, so long as it's not you who suffers?
The people posting in this string who might be accused of being deniers most certainly are not that at all. They're practical, have reason to doubt a PR
juggernaut that has propose zero realistic solutions and only seems to aim at spending vast amounts of money, some of which goes to the so-called researchers and vast amounts up for grabs to corporations, who so far have offered no serious solutions.
Last thing: Scientific integrity. Agreement is not scientific at all. And one truth of science is that you cannot PROVE anything with science, you can only disprove or demonstrate that you cannot disprove the null hypothesis, should you by some miracle happen to state it accurately. The man who taught me that signed off on thousands of doctoral research papers, (63 page CV, single spaced in elite (10pt) type, and was on the jury for two scientific and clinical journals. If agreement were science, we'd still think the Sun was spinning around the Earth.
Strong letter to follow. So far as I know there is no denier handbook. And the critical books on the topic are generally put down only by the advocates who have much to gain by shutting the opposition down.