RT @DocRichard Re: "Just answer 5 climate related questions without obfuscation and equivocation." // Oh, is that all? (I smell a trap - lol) However, since you have piqued my curiosity, I will play along...with a few conditions, of course.

1. I am allowed to rationally challenge a question's false assumptions, stated or unstated, and/or any other relevant flaws (eg., "Have you stopped beating your climatologist wife yet?") that a question may contain or imply.

2. To insure that the answer to one question doesn't change the nature, focus or content of a subsequent question (a common tactic of psychological prestidigitators), you must reveal all of them in advance.

3. You must define your terms when requested.

My only other concern is that, without a trained debate moderator, who will settle any disputes (eg., when and why does a qualification cease to be clarifying and become an obfuscation?) that may arise? After all (and as you well know, doctor) confirmation bias is a powerful motivation for rationalization(s).

Should you agree to these terms, I await your inquiries. Regards, John Jr.

Reply · Report Post