re: #310 LudwigVanQuixote

I have a new AGW post about how science fails to communicate, even when it is utterly correct and “wins” the debate.

Alley and Rohrabacher: Brain vs Bluster

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

If you watch this video you will see, Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican (of course) who is angling to be chairman of the Science and Technology committee, attempting to bluster against Dr. Richard Alley, an expert on paleo-climate from Penn State.

While Rohrbacher skips from debunked taking point to debunked talking point, Alley explains clearly and concisely the obvious reasons why the various talking points brought by the politician are garbage. There is only one problem. The listener must have a basic grasp of science and scientific reasoning to understand just how badly Rohrbacher was taken apart by Alley.

Volume and aggression can sometimes win debates. Sometimes people will simply be intimidated and fold a winning hand. It works especially well if one party is much larger and stronger than the other, since the smaller person will often just defer rather than risk getting smacked around. It’s not a good thing, but it is something that happens all the time.