Last spring Klaus started the usual cheap circus of demanding to debate Al Gore. Like herpes, many Denier fables and memes just won’t go away no matter how often you treat them.
Naturally Gore won’t dignify this clown with a debate, so now the narrative has become that Al Gore is afraid of Klaus.
Of course public debates are not about establishing truth or fact. Rather they are popularity contests, episodes of American Idiot Idol, that reward the best performer rather than truth, particularly if one of the participants is willing and able to lie convincingly (more on this here and here).
Klaus’s entire argument (and here) boils down to his opinion that taking action on climate change would not be good for the economy and would require international cooperation and coordination, neither of which he likes because they smack of socialism, and therefore climate change is not real.
That’s like concluding that, despite the opinions of teams of Drs, you must not have cancer because you think you cannot afford treatment and you don’t want to support socialized medicine. It’s so mind bogglingly ridiculous that one is at a loss as to where to begin.
He also uses all of the standard logical fallacies and distortions, such as focusing on Al Gore as if he were the source of and/or spokesperson for climate science, naturally ignoring the massive volume of evidence for climate change.
He also indulges in the equally absurd ploy of pretending that the IPCC conducts and controls the science it reports on.
Of course the the IPCC merely collates and reports on all of the credible climate science done anywhere and everywhere, so Klaus’s insistence that “It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel.” is de facto saying that it is not “fair” to refer to credible science.
Equally he is careful to always call it “climate change theory”, as if there were not an unbelievable volume of scientific evidence supporting it. Never mind that in the sciences ‘accepted theory’ is as strong an endorsement as you can get, science having abandoned the fiction of proofs and laws half a century ago.
To get a sense of the scale of lunacy we are dealing with here, consider this quote “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so.” To refer to this as stupidity is not being insulting, it is merely being accurate.
Of course the real debate about climate change rages on all of the time, in the scientific literature. The problem for Klaus is that the debate there is informed, intelligent, logical, rational, and requires actual knowledge.
Worse, in the academic literature people analyse what is said, and if it is blithering stupidity they will not only say so, they show how and why. Not surprisingly Klaus is uninterested in participating in the real debate.
If Klaus actually believes public debate is the way to handle academic matters, why did he ever publish in the economics literature? Why didn’t he just publicly debate every idiot who disagreed with him? whether they knew anything about economics or not?
I hereby challenge Klaus to a public debate!
Not about climate of course, but about economics.
That’s right Klaus, show us you are sincere by publicly debating every moron who does not like your economic theories. We naturally expect that you will show us that you really believe this is the correct way to resolve these matters by accepting every challenge no matter how inappropriate or ill informed the challenger.
I know nothing about economics, so I am as qualified to debate economics as you are to debate climate science. I confess that I have not yet picked my argument. It may go along the lines that theories of economics always result in poor people, poverty is bad, therefor economics is wrong.
Whatever I pick I assure you it will be as fact free, irrelevant, and idiotic as your own climate arguments are.
Mind you, I do not plan to wing it based on sheer ignorance alone. I promise to troll the internet looking for ideas that sound good, no matter that they are factually wrong, discredited, or outright ridiculous. As long as they sound reasonable and hence would have audience appeal is all I need.
In other words I intend to use the Gish Gallop, just as you intend to do with Gore. That is to say I will pump out as much horseshit as fast as I can so that you must use all of your time trying to refute the nonsense rather than making valid, intelligent points.
Of course if you choose to ignore my points it will look like you have no counter argument and I will win anyway. Yup, the Gish Gallop is a sure fire winning strategy for those who intend to mislead, distort and lie, as you have done and undoubtedly intend to continue doing.
Personally I think this is a completely idiotic way to try to deal with scientific or academic matters. Intelligent, rational, fact based dialogue in the academic literature would seem a much better approach, but apparently you do not agree.
Now if I understand this correctly, by your own logic, a refusal to debate by you is a tacit admission on your part that your economic ideas and theories are garbage, in the same way you wish to imply that Gore’s refusal to debate somehow undermines climate science.
Here again this strikes me as absurd since the only legitimate refutation of ideas and facts is actual refutation of the ideas and facts themselves, but apparently it makes sense to you.
It also seems that a refusal on your part also discredits your climate claims even further (if it is actually possible for them to be discredited any more than they already are, which I grant is improbable).
Since you are an economist, and if your economics is garbage, how much more so your climate science where you have no credential? If by refusing to debate your competence in your own field of knowledge is discredited, how much more so your field of ignorance?
Even more telling, much of your “case” against climate science based on economic and political rhetoric; completely irrelevant of course, but here again this seems to make sense to you in some mysterious way.
Given that, having discredited your economics would further show that your climate critique is even more ridiculous (again hard to imagine how it could be worse than it is, but I suppose it is possible).
In sum, it would seem you must debate me to:
1) Demonstrate that you actually believe public debates are a legitimate way to address matters of facts, and that you are not just the disingenuous buffoon that you seem to be, cynically manipulating a gullible public with cheap theatrics;
2) Defend your economic theories, because otherwise they are by default (at least according to your logic) shown to be nonsense, and by extension your climate critique even more so.
I hope many others will issue their own challenge to Klaus as well. After all, he implies that a public figure is required to accept such challenges or it is understood that they are wrong.
Please post our challenge on blogs, on forums, and be sure to send it in to the Prague Daily Monitor
So there you have it Klaus, when can I expect our debate? or are you afraid?
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 133 … still no evidence.
* Yup, our very own😉