Showing posts with label rhetorical strategy examined. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rhetorical strategy examined. Show all posts

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Let's Debate William Happer's CO2 Delusion

Anonymous12/12  (Veizer?) inspired me to take on Mr. CO2 Coalition's Dr. William Happer by examining his "Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World - talking points”. 
As I was finishing my closing to part one of that review, it occurred to me this was turning into a good stand alone declaration and invitation, why bury it?  The review itself to be posted shorty:

Closing thoughts regarding Happer's Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World.
In the final analysis Dr. Happer and Republican climate science myths are deluded nonsense. 
Projecting a comic book image of our Earth, one driven by willful ignorance, corporate power-politics and self-interested avarice with a sociopathic disregard for humanity; this biosphere we depend on; and the future.  
Educationally, it’s pure garbage!  Nothing in it is serious science or objective information.
I defy any Dr. Happer fan to engage in an honest open constructive fact-based debate, that can intelligently dispute my claims.  
Bullying, threats, dirty tricks can shut down the discuss, but can you come up with serious honest arguments and evidence?  
Can you teach anything constructive? Can you learn anything from new information?

So, what is the deal with Earth and climate and CO2 and current events?

Sunday, January 5, 2020

Anonymous12/12 (Veizer?) drops by with more complaints.



I received some more comments from Anonymous12/12 yesterday.  Same games, so once again his comments get rejected.  Though, I’m certainly not going to ignore them because they so perfectly represent what rational people are up against and what I’m trying to write about.  

Anonymous12/12’s three comments offer another good vehicle for me to try to convey what I’ve learned from decades of listening to the disingenuous contrarian monologue.  Mostly I’m addressing Anonymous12/12, but occasionally I switch my attention to readers, all of it is food for thought.  The embedded images show that I haven’t changed any of his words.  

What's the point.

Dissect the debate, understand what they are going to come at you with.
  
Be prepared! 
(latest edit Jan 5, near midnight)
———————————————————————————————————
Unknown at 11:56 AM  (2/3)
(click on image)

Peter, Firstly happy new year to you. 

Hopefully less insults hypocrisy about insults 

when there have been many more from your side*. 
_______________________________________________
*I think not!

The irony of your type complaining about hypocrisy isn’t lost on me.  

Yes, I did say your previous comment typified the behavior of an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent.  After reading these comments, I see nothing has changed. 

You continue exhibiting a certain thuggish behavior.  
Why not respect my rules?

I’m ready for a serious dialogue, but you aren’t offering one, you have games on your mind.

A good faith dialogue is upfront and with a free exchange of information and references done in plain english.  That said, I will share your comments on my terms and with appropriate commentary.
_______________________________________________
Can you please send a copy of the interaction between 14 scientists and the work of Drs Shaviv & Veizer the link isn’t working. 
_______________________________________________
Send a copy?  Sure, give me an email address.

Or you could look for yourself: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html  (the following is a fraction of what you can find over there.)