Monday, September 14, 2009

Debate With Marc Morano

Marc Morano (of ClimateDepot.com) and I have agreed to a debate on the climate change situation and debate this November, just before the Copenhagen Conference. We'd prefer to do it on the radio than via Web cam. Any one out there want to carry such a debate for, say, an hour?

4 comments:

Dano said...

Brush up on your rhetoric - you'll need it, esp the part of rhetoric that identifies opponent's tactics - misdirection, false equivalence, false premise, hasty generalization. Those are the standards. We all know the cherry-picking. Here is an analysis of the Swift Boater's "650 scientists" ('not credible'). The aggressive bluster to hide weakness is to be expected as well. Don't get flustered at these tactics and you'll wipe the floor with him. Poor guy needs the pub.

Best,

D

Anonymous said...

Brilliant analysis of a forthcoming debate. Personally attacking someone who disagrees with you is helpful. Why don't you read and cite all the peer reviewed articles, not just those with which you agree? To come to your own independent conclusions requires reading all journals. Good science requires this.

Dano said...

Why don't you read and cite all the peer reviewed articles, not just those with which you agree? To come to your own independent conclusions requires reading all journals. Good science requires this.

Well, of course.

Trouble is, none of the peer-reviewed papers support the denialist position, so one expects that Morano will distract away from this inconvenient fact, as I implied above. If David can deflect the rhetorical tactics, Morano has zero chance.

The past tactics to expect in distracting away from the overwhelming evidence being the ones I listed.

As I have said a million times: denialists have nothing. I merely pointed out for David the likely tactics to expect.

No need to misdirect away from that, eh anon?

Best,

D

rhhardin said...

Bloggingheads would be a nice forum, though I don't know the conventions.

I suppose it would have to be interesting.

Bear in mind that neither side is doing science.

It's modelers vs model deniers.

No Navier-Stokes equations are in sight.

So I'm not sure how interesting it would be.