The Morano Mumble Jumble
Well, to boost the incoming at the WP, one of their meteorologists, Matt Rogers is now doing the Morano Mumble Jumble. More of the usual. Be good creatures and help him out. Marc is quite pleased
UPDATE: Pass the popcorn
Marc Morano is upset that Andrew Freedman, a blogger with the Washington Post, won't debate him about climate change. Not wanting to see Marc left without a debating partner, I'd be happy to debate Marc Morano on climate policy. Were we to do an Oxford-style debate I'd propose the following resolution:Although one of the commentors, Stan, made a useful point that also applies to Plimers dancing away from MonbiotResolved: Governments around the world should adopt a low carbon tax to finance technological innovation and other policies focused on decarbonizng the global economy. At the same time enhanced investments are needed around the world on policies focused on improving resilience and adaptive capacity.How about it Marc?
One of the biggest shortcomings of debate formats is that the debaters end up talking past each other because they define terms differently or want to stress completely different aspects of the issue (or fail to critique each other's "evidence"). I think the debate would likely be more interesting if the two of you both agreed to narrow the issue to one genuinely in dispute and published "briefs".Comments
I guess the model for appellate courts works very well. The issues on appeal are specific, appellant files a brief, appellee responds, appellant replies to the response. Then each gets to make a presentation to the court in oral argument (often mostly responding to questions from the panel) in the same order. No surprises, both sides are fully apprised and fully prepared to respond.
For a debate, you should correspond to discuss precisely where you disagree and structure the debate to focus on those issues. Then you should make your initial case in writing (or cite previous work/studies relied on).
There is no point of having a debate where someone cites X and the other isn't familiar with X. It may score debating points, but a thoughtful audience really wants to know if X is really worthy or not and cannot find that out.