Skip to comments.
St Andrews University: Global Warming Loses Formal Debate (AGW Can't Argue Facts, Must Insult)
IceCAP - Political Columns ^
| Mar 06, 2009
| Dr Richard Courtney
Posted on 03/06/2009 9:45:16 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
To: BubbaBasher
“If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If not, pound the table!”
21
posted on
03/06/2009 10:56:08 AM PST
by
r-q-tek86
(The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
He argued that AGW is a fact because the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that says the IPCC is 90% certain that AGW exists. From this he claimed there is a crisis because governments are failing to give the matter sufficient importance. This in a tried and true technique which has enjoyed great success for almost 20 years.
I submit the following as proof:
Reminds me of a fascinating quote from a Chinese Com government during the "International Woman's Conference" held in China during the Clinton administration. The government official said ..."that they studied Hillary's speechmaking method to understand her power and success. They concluded: her trick was never actually to make any arguments -- just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience.
(They found that interesting and perhaps admirable, and to be emulated).
22
posted on
03/06/2009 11:41:12 AM PST
by
Publius6961
(Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
To: r-q-tek86
If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull ...
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Thanks for the Post. BTTT.
24
posted on
03/06/2009 12:19:06 PM PST
by
PA Engineer
(Liberate America from the occupation media.)
To: Publius6961; patton; neverdem
The government official said ...”that they studied Hillary's speechmaking method to understand her power and success. They concluded: her trick was never actually to make any arguments — just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience. Is this contrast to the Republicans method of debate - Which is to concede every point brought up by the liberal and then claim that “Well, we are going to do that too!”; and never-ever-never absolutely state “That is a lie, and you know it is a lie, and I demand you retract that lie!”
25
posted on
03/06/2009 6:13:50 PM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
26
posted on
03/06/2009 8:35:17 PM PST
by
Wil H
(No Accomplishments, No Experience, No Resume No Records, No References, Nobama..)
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
27
posted on
03/06/2009 8:36:29 PM PST
by
nufsed
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Thanks for the thread, it’s an enjoyable read.
28
posted on
03/06/2009 9:22:28 PM PST
by
Balding_Eagle
(If Liberals would pay their taxes, there would be no deficit..)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-28 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson