Hall of Shame

My speciality has been confronting climate science “skeptics” with fact based constructive debates and it usually follows the same trajectory.  I call out false claims, statements and question their reasoning with explanations, arguments and an assortment of relevant links to further authoritative information so people can learn about these issues for themselves.

If they return it’s with a round of bluster and distractions that morph into ad hominem attacks on people, either me, reporters or scientists.  Never any indication that new information was read and assessed, let alone absorbed.  I respond with more facts and reasoned arguments, they respond with final insults and slammed doors not to be heard from again.  Leaving me with Virtual Debates where I strive to document the dishonesty that too many others seem to pardon.

These are the same talking heads who are astro-turfing media outlets demanding public debate, but who steadfastly run from our debates. Tragically for our country and future these self interested folks only seek theatrical lawyerly debates dedicated to confusing and obscuring.

When it comes to Serious Constructive Debates - that is, dialogues that respect the confines of truth and honestly representing others and the evidence - these showmen are nowhere to be found.


Earlier writings are poorly formatted, sprinkled with typos and other flaws, though it seems to me I’ve been improving, that’s for others to decide.  Like I said this is as much a learning project for me as it is a teaching and sharing project.

Speaking of Hall of Shame, here's a new collection.

Visit AmericansFor(Kochs)Prosperity.blogspot.com for the details.

No comments:

Post a Comment