Comments 1 to 6:

1. Doug Hutcheson at 17:31 PM on 14 January, 2013
   2012: The Year Climate Change Got Real by Greenman appears in both 'The Week in Review' and 'Coming Soon'. I must be in a quantum time warp: oh, yes, there's Schrödinger's cat, and it's still alive; I'm definitely warped ... "8-)
2. Tristan at 18:37 PM on 15 January, 2013
   In the opinion of those with some knowledge on the matter: Who would you pick to debate climate change for Team Science?
   
   A slightly different question: Who, in the climate science community, blows your mind with their expertise?
3. michael sweet at 20:53 PM on 15 January, 2013
   Tristan,
   
   Dana does a terrific job here at SkS. Scientists debate in writing. If you want someone to verbally challenge the deniers you need to find someone who is skillful at replying to Gish Gallops. It is not necessary to blow away people with expertise in an oral debate. People cannot confirm lies orally so science often loses.
4. Tristan at 22:32 PM on 15 January, 2013
   Michael, I don't dispute any of that, but my questions still stand :)
5. Tom Curtis at 22:59 PM on 15 January, 2013
   Tristan @2, the problem with verbal debates is that the denier and the scientist come to it with different objectives. The scientist wishes to establish and communicate the truth. The denier simply wants to not be refuted. A draw, where the audience goes away thinking both sides made good points, is a win for the denier for it means they have established in the audiences mind that there is still a scientific controversy about global warming, even though in fact the issues he raised are uncontroversially false.
   
   Hence the effectiveness of the Gish gallop. The denier feels no need to support their claims because they are not there to establish or communicate the truth. They are happy to make a string of false, often egregiously false claims, with out support. Meanwhile the scientist must, by training and by their disciplinary ethical standards restrict themselves to a small number of claims that they can clearly establish.
   
   The result? The audience gets the impression that the scientist only has a few pieces of evidence in their favour, while the denier has vast amounts of evidence in their favour. Alternatively, the scientist may attempt to refute some of the deniers points. In that case, because a lie can be said in a few words, but requires many words to rebut, the denier is left with (apparently) many unrefuted points in their favour.
   
   So, if you are going to have a verbal debate with deniers, the proper tactic is don't. And if you are fool enough to ignore that advice, you don't need somebody competent at explaining science so much as somebody expert at showing their opponent is bullshitting. If you are fool enough to give credibility to a deniers stunt debate, don't get a scientist to debate on your side. Get a good lawyer.
6. Tristan at 00:06 AM on 16 January, 2013
   Tom, that's a lucid description of the playing field and perhaps something SkS should have an article about.
   
   However, there have been and will continue to be 'debates' in the public arena whether it's fair or sensible or not.
   
   It's not impossible to beat the Gish gallop. Make a wry comment about the torrent of verbiage and then pick your target. If what people hear is a confident, comfortable response with a bit of pith and some pointed queries fired back, they will feel a lot less impressed by the initial deluge.
   
   "Well, as I've been given a range of misapprahensions to respond to I'll pick the one that relates to my area of research"
   
   Or, ignore the gallop altogether and just attack back.
   
   "Wow Jim, I just counted 7 baloney factoids in that 45 second outburst. Ya see Jim, all of this is just a smokescreen to try to disguise that they can't account for this simple fact" *Cue Kevin C's demonstration*

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.