My recent debate on global warming in the comments section of this post got me thinking, mostly because the debater, Willy, has been “debating” with me by posting links, whereas I’ve been writing from direct knowledge. I think what bothers me the most is Willy’s stealing of information from other sources, then not giving credit to those sources.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007. Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
Now that’s lifted verbatim from Catherine Brahic of the New Scientist. Here’s the article. No citation from Willy here (which is tough, because it’s a comment system, so I’m willing to cut him some slack), but he cross-posted this post at his blog. He’s linked to copious sources before, but here, where he directly draws from the source, he gives no link, no credit.
He does it again from a post on environmentalchemistry.com. Willy says:
- There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
- There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.
Again, lifted right from a source without citation.
Now, on his blog, Willy claims he’s “defeated” me, which is funny. I can’t post on Thursday, and he immediately claims victory. He also claims I was “deleting” his posts and that I banned him from the site. It’s odd that I’d let Bobak post all the crazy nonsense in his posts but start deleting the crazy nonsense from Willy and his toadies. Of course, that would be the rational answer– wait & see.
Willy’s debating style involves attempting to discredit the debater rather than debate the subject matter. It shouldn’t be a surprise, as it’s what the uninformed do in debates. Willy’s counter arguments contained accusations that I’m a Creationist, that I’m at a tiny school in Wisconsin, or that I’m a disciple of Rush Limbaugh. He’s also threatened to tell my dean about my Creationist ways.
Clearly, Willy can’t think for himself. He’s got numerous links to left-wing sources he runs to and cross-posts. He refuses to debate the issue, and instead of learning about the issue, he just cuts & pastes from other sources, even though the material he’s posting is often irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He has a persecution complex, thinking that he’s “fighting the man”, but in reality he’s “annoying a blogger”. And when his post appears, does he eat crow & apologize on his own blog? Of course not. He puts up a one-line note saying “the original post is now there”. No retractions that I’m a censoring Neocon thug. That would require humility.
Finally, as for debating style, you never declare victory. When you debate in a public forum, it’s never for you or who you’re debating. The audience determines who holds the most persuasive argument. Declaring victory is the sign of an immature debater.
So, I’m done wasting time & energy on Willy. If you want to see what I’ve said on the subject of climate change, check out the tabs on the side. If you want someone reposting paragraphs from other sites, go over to Willy’s blog. At least you’ll know that what you’re getting from me is my own thoughts.
(On a side note, I was actually annoyed with the spam filter, askimet, here on WordPress. It’s captured a few comments without asking for moderation, including those from Willy. But now that I see Willy’s irrational debating style, I think it’s more prescient than I originally gave it credit for.)