MattSavinar wrote:You're absolutely correct in your analysis of Alex. However, Corsi is simply vile.
Anything is better than Corsi.
I really do understand that sentiment Matt. Talking with Corsi would be like talking with the "Evil Death Ball" from The Fifth Element. You'd probably end up sweating black goo.
However, given the amount of name recognition that you've got, I say the best career choice would be to go for the big target. And wouldn't it feel much better to completely destroy Corsi in an argument than to win against Alex?
With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes. And then you can do "folksy" versions of the argument to further prove your point like,
"Listen, just because we can find some oil like residue in strange places doesn't mean that oil fields are everywhere. YOU don't think that your bathtub is full because there is a puddle outside your house do you?!?"
You can destroy the Russian Scientists credibility too with things like,
"Near the end of the Cold War, the Russian Scientists were under enormous pressure to conform to doctrine. Russia was nearing their own Peak Oil but scientists that said so got sent to the Gulags. Russian doctors had to pretend that DNA didn't exist! YOU wouldn't want to have a Soviet Doctor cure your cancer would you?"
You can take on the "refilling fields" with,
"One time, my water heater busted and my basement got filled with water. But I don't claim that water heaters caused the water to form. Oil fields are really like tanks of water buried in the dirt. Some times one busts and fills another."
Tis up to you of course. I personally think it would be easier to prepare for and easier to win the debate if you took on Corsi. That victory seems like more of a win to me. But slime is hard to get off, so I do understand.
Regardless, use the water metaphor. People don't understand oil, but they do understand water.