It’s been awhile since I had a good online debate and I welcome the opportunity provided by a commenter to What's Up With Republican disconnect from planet Earth?. I’ll use my generic ‘Dude’ since I don’t feel comfortable using his real name, no offense intended. I myself found his comment offensive in it’s devious mischief and it seemed a careful dissection of his rhetorical game is called for. I hope some may find it a learning experience. Update, I've received an email from E.M. who requested I refer to him by his initials. He also offered a four thousand word response that I want to read through before posting it, it'll probably be Saturday night or Sunday before I'll be able to do get it posted. (12/30/16. 10PM). > It has been posted at #3 E.M. has his say. Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities.
————————————————————————————————-
E.M., I don’t believe you are the innocent you pretend to be. If you were that naive you wouldn’t be commenting on AWG over here! That doesn’t mean we can’t continue a constructive dialogue, I just want you to know where we stand.
You have provided me another excellent vehicle to examine the subtle dishonest rhetorical game that the Republican PR machine broadcasts through thousands of astro-turfed mouthpieces. It brings me back to what this blog was all about before the 11/8/16 catastrophe and I thank you for that opportunity.
CC
_____________________________________________________________
E.M.: Morning,
Glad we can have this discussion, and I appreciate your timely response. I am not here to to argue the existence of the human-contribution to climate change; this is an unarguable topic and it is widely accepted on both sides of the debate.
_____________________________________________________
Nonsense! The right wing media machine is saturated with people denying the fundamentals of AGW. Just need to google it, or try YouTube for hundreds of real zingers. {This deception is the first “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}
You say you don't want to argue about the existence of the human-contribution to climate change and then proceed to do just that in a wishy-washy way. What gives?
____________________________________________________________
E.M.: Honestly, I think both sides of the AWG debate are self-interested and self-serving.
_______________________________________________________
Why do you think the scientific community has been self-serving?
Please offer some examples.
