Megan McArdle has a great post about debate / discussion tactics up, where she firmly points out that making an argument you don’t believe in, because you think it might help you “win”, tends to drive away your listeners once they catch you at it. It was an excellent post, until she got to her last paragraph. Then she babbled this
Think of the ridiculous debates over breast cancer and abortion, or the rear-guard action against climate-change science.
My response to her
The Earth’s been cooling for the last decade, we’re at a century low for sunspots, the AGW proponents still can’t come up with a computer climate model that works going backwards (and if you can’t predict the past, NASA’s recently released a study blaming Arctic Warming on the elimination of aerosol particle emissions starting in the 70s, why in the world would we think you could predict the future?), and yet you claim that it’s the opponents of the “climate change” / AGW fantasy who are engaging in a “rear-guard action”?
(All that setting aside the way proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming have switched to calling it “climate change”, since this “lets” them claim that any bad climate, temp up or down, is “caused” by CO2 emissions. Now that is an example of a “ridiculous” “rear-guard action”.)
Where exactly are you getting those drugs?
She really does need to occasionally get outside of the NY – DC – Boston corridor. 😦