My weekly post at DeSmogBlog is now up. It's about the latest Naomi Oreskes brouhaha, which I've been trying not to watch too closely. That's what the piece is about. And if that's too mysterious--well, read it.
In tackling the problem of avoiding the naysayer rehash, I like to put the challenge towards two fronts:
1. positive evidence that allegedly points away from anthropogenic global warming; and
2. showing how the consensus research effectively rebuts the naysayer direction allegedly supported by such evidence.
The idea is get them to substantively talk about the science, rather than just gain-saying and taking points out of context. Usually this results in no response to the science, and so I just keep hammering on that point.
ANSWER; Probably a trained and credentialed framing genius.
A yuppie graduate degree in communication, rhetoric, and framing is a terrible thing to waste.
In tackling the problem of avoiding the naysayer rehash, I like to put the challenge towards two fronts:
1. positive evidence that allegedly points away from anthropogenic global warming; and
2. showing how the consensus research effectively rebuts the naysayer direction allegedly supported by such evidence.
The idea is get them to substantively talk about the science, rather than just gain-saying and taking points out of context. Usually this results in no response to the science, and so I just keep hammering on that point.
ANSWER; Probably a trained and credentialed framing genius.
A yuppie graduate degree in communication, rhetoric, and framing is a terrible thing to waste.
Or it could have been a trained lawyer?
Your DSB piece is very good. Thanks.
Douglas Coker