Coffee With Scott Adamshttps://www.pscp.tv/w/ctmP-TExODgwMjU5fDFZcXhveVhlWURhR3b1LifdzivDHCatLPcc-EOnfy1oqJGSjnGR0JLG5xXYeA== …
-
-
Remember our rule for good argumentation: 1) Claim + evidence (not enough) 2) Claim + evid + counterclaim + evid (not enough) 3) Claim, counterclaim + rebuttal of counterclaim (a much better argument structure) I will find the rebuttals to Lomburg and Shellenberger.
-
In short, we need at least 3 levels of argumentation (claim/counterclaim/rebuttal...) to begin to understand which is the best argument. Perhaps more levels for complex issues. I agree, assigning a % to natural disasters due to CC is a tricky business, & maybe impossible.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is always good once one has seen a debunk to see if anyone has debunked the debunk and not stop there. Many people do that, and could miss an excellent argument against the debunk. It is a business to debunk all climate change arguments, including good scientific ones.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.