Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
This may not be the right forum since the debate was a jumble of science, economics and politics.
http://www.munkdebates.com/
George Monbiot and Elizabeth May versus Lord Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg on the resolution "Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and deserves a commensurate response" (heh). For those who haven't seen it I can't recommend it unless you want to know what some of the economic arguments are regarding climate change.
I found the opening hilarious. Owner Peter Munk came out with an introduction:
"...I cannot tell you how important [these four participants are], in that particular field which we are debating tonight. These are the rockstars. These are the real experts in that particular field [...] It is their knowledge, their expertise on the subject we are debating and most importantly their comitment to the ideals which they believe in with such passion, with such strength that that is what brought them here [...] entirely due to the unparalleled quality, the international reputation and the outstanding knowledge these people represent. And no one can do this better, in this particular issue of global warming, than the people that we have here..."
Way to build up expectations, right? Poor audience.
The first opening statement was by Lord Nigel Lawson:
"[Global warming] is seldom properly debated. Believers in what, to all intents and purposes, has become a new secular religion from Al Gore, who refuses to debate, downwards, constantly insist that dissent should be neither tolerated nor heard. And I hope that most of you here find that as disquieting as I do [...] Now the first part of this proposition is not even believed by the vast majority of climate scientists themselves. The most thorough survey of the most accredited, mainstream climate scientists was conducted a couple years ago by Hans Von Storch* of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. [...] And in fact, so far this century there's been no recorded global warming at all. Moreover the most important source for the IPCC's global temperature series is the small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Recent leaked emails, I'm afraid, have revealed serious incompetence and apparent skullduggery there and I have called for a full and thorough inquiry there... "
*Von Storch's survey was online, had no way of preventing multiple submissions or verifying that it was answered by the intended audience and was distributed to a climateskeptic listserv.
The only points of significance in the debate came down to competing studies. Competing studies on the economic consequences of climate change, the cost of taking action and on the relative importance of it in the opinion of climate scientists. No one watching can really come to a new conclusion on anything without doing their own research.
Bjorn Lomborg was all charm and ernestness and he did a good job making himself sound reasonable for most of the debate. In contrast to his teammate Nigel "no global warming in the past 10 years" Lawson, he said things like "Of course we should listen to the scientists" and "AGW is a real problem and we should do something about, but we should do it smartly". Monbiot at one point asked Lomborg what he thought of Lawson's anti-science views, but the question was avoided.
Elizabeth May had very little patience for either of the con side. She got particularly upset when they laughed at her for saying that Africans she'd talk to said that global warming would worsen AIDS rates. At another point she said "There should be limits to free-speech. It's wrong to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. But if there is a fire, it's also wrong to yell 'There's no fire! It's just the popcorn machine malfunctioning'" (paraphrase).
Monbiot tried to challenge the polls and economic projections of the others with his own along with the plethora of crazy claims made by Lawson. But an uninformed observer would really have no way of knowing who was right.
http://www.munkdebates.com/
George Monbiot and Elizabeth May versus Lord Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg on the resolution "Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and deserves a commensurate response" (heh). For those who haven't seen it I can't recommend it unless you want to know what some of the economic arguments are regarding climate change.
I found the opening hilarious. Owner Peter Munk came out with an introduction:
"...I cannot tell you how important [these four participants are], in that particular field which we are debating tonight. These are the rockstars. These are the real experts in that particular field [...] It is their knowledge, their expertise on the subject we are debating and most importantly their comitment to the ideals which they believe in with such passion, with such strength that that is what brought them here [...] entirely due to the unparalleled quality, the international reputation and the outstanding knowledge these people represent. And no one can do this better, in this particular issue of global warming, than the people that we have here..."
Way to build up expectations, right? Poor audience.
The first opening statement was by Lord Nigel Lawson:"[Global warming] is seldom properly debated. Believers in what, to all intents and purposes, has become a new secular religion from Al Gore, who refuses to debate, downwards, constantly insist that dissent should be neither tolerated nor heard. And I hope that most of you here find that as disquieting as I do [...] Now the first part of this proposition is not even believed by the vast majority of climate scientists themselves. The most thorough survey of the most accredited, mainstream climate scientists was conducted a couple years ago by Hans Von Storch* of the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg. [...] And in fact, so far this century there's been no recorded global warming at all. Moreover the most important source for the IPCC's global temperature series is the small group of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. Recent leaked emails, I'm afraid, have revealed serious incompetence and apparent skullduggery there and I have called for a full and thorough inquiry there... "
*Von Storch's survey was online, had no way of preventing multiple submissions or verifying that it was answered by the intended audience and was distributed to a climateskeptic listserv.
The only points of significance in the debate came down to competing studies. Competing studies on the economic consequences of climate change, the cost of taking action and on the relative importance of it in the opinion of climate scientists. No one watching can really come to a new conclusion on anything without doing their own research.
Bjorn Lomborg was all charm and ernestness and he did a good job making himself sound reasonable for most of the debate. In contrast to his teammate Nigel "no global warming in the past 10 years" Lawson, he said things like "Of course we should listen to the scientists" and "AGW is a real problem and we should do something about, but we should do it smartly". Monbiot at one point asked Lomborg what he thought of Lawson's anti-science views, but the question was avoided.
Elizabeth May had very little patience for either of the con side. She got particularly upset when they laughed at her for saying that Africans she'd talk to said that global warming would worsen AIDS rates. At another point she said "There should be limits to free-speech. It's wrong to falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. But if there is a fire, it's also wrong to yell 'There's no fire! It's just the popcorn machine malfunctioning'" (paraphrase).
Monbiot tried to challenge the polls and economic projections of the others with his own along with the plethora of crazy claims made by Lawson. But an uninformed observer would really have no way of knowing who was right.