Lomborg v. Monbiot: liveblogging the Munk debate on climate change 13

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Olive Ridley Posted 12:54 pm
   01 Dec 2009

   David:
   
   Thanks for watching so I don't have to be subjected to Bjorn Lomborg's sophistry. What does this accomplish, BTW? Isn't the whole point of a "debate" like this that the skill of the debater is more important than the issue being debated? When we did debates in school, we would get coin tossed into supporting/opposing various positions. The best debater, not the one with the overwhelming weight of facts behind him, but the one most persuasive in selling her points, usually won.
   
   Not that I know anything about the relative abilities of the debate protagonists, it's all very silly that there's even anything to debate really.

   Permalink

2. 

   aprilglaspie Posted 2:37 pm
   01 Dec 2009

   Bjorn Lomborg is a scientific lightweight with a penchant for the highest bidder, and lying for bucks. If George Soros offered him a few $mil, he'd change his tune and tell the truth. He still wouldn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. This guy's credibility is Fabio on science.
   
   Meantime, I watched an Umbra (only the shadow knows) video. I've been reading her column for a while and never realized she looks like Tina Fey, only better, and her hair is the same color as Claire Danes' in My So-Called Life. Most women are gorgeous. Most are intelligent. A few have this sort of committed attitude. I'd say she ought to coach ND football next year, or run for elective office.

   Permalink

3. 

   Easterbunny Posted 5:07 pm
   01 Dec 2009

   Liveblogging? Me too!
   http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1023

   Permalink

4. 

   hapa Posted 6:58 pm
   01 Dec 2009

   oxfam FTW

   Permalink

5. 

   randino Posted 7:07 pm
   01 Dec 2009

   Thanks David for turning us on to this. The one thing that I think stands out on the con side of the debate, and what you find so fundamental among deniers, is that they do not "get it" as far as the connection between the economic, and social well being of humanity, and the well being of the environment and the climate. They may say they "get it", but it is not reflected in their analysis or policy suggestions. That failure to link up one with the other is our greatest challenge. One that is unfortunately fundamental to especially the western way of looking at the world.
   
   Randy Cunningham

   Permalink

6. 

   Joel W Posted 2:20 am
   02 Dec 2009

   Intriguing line up. Although we all know what Bjorn the yawn position is, so I doubt anything Mr Monbiot says will change it.
   
   Instead, maybe Bjorn and Nigel Lawson ( God, what a terrible blast from the past) should go on holiday together.
   
   http://www.greenexplorer.ovi.com/getinspired/australasia/australia/climate-change-deniers-holida/

   Permalink

7. 

   rpauli Posted 8:43 am
   02 Dec 2009

   Dead Parrot?
   
   He's not dead.

   Permalink

8. 

   Dave from Canada Posted 2:00 pm
   02 Dec 2009

   David, it would be great if your liveblog could point out a few things:
   
   1. May and Monbiot, as much as I side with their views, are not scientists, and frankly are lightweights compared to people who could have been on that side of the debate.
   
   2. The real place for determining whether human-caused climate change is happening is in the peer-reviewed climate science literature, and the answer is in and the real debate is over. So this is a bit of theatre, nothing more.
   
   3. It is unhelpful to have a "debate" on this. Debates are suited for choices among morals, values, politicians and the like. They are not suited for choices around facts. For instance, we don't really debate whether uranium is radioactive or stars are millions of light-years away. Scientific consensus tells us these things, and thus we accept them (except that con-men and their dupes sometimes don't). Likewise climate change.

   Permalink

   1. 

      sasquatch Posted 2:53 pm
      06 Dec 2009

      Here here.

      Permalink

9. 

   Dave from Canada Posted 2:39 pm
   02 Dec 2009

   You might also point out that the Munk Debates Advisory Committee is heavily weighted with far right wingers http://www.munkdebates.com/about/ and that the Aurea Foundation that supports it is likewise slanted to the "free market" (i.e. right wing cover for corporate oligarchism) http://www.aureafoundation.com/aboutus.html.
   
   I guess that explains why they are holding this "debate". Sounds curiously like the program of the US Chamber of Commerce to put climate change "on trial."

   Permalink

10. 

    Easterbunny Posted 3:17 pm
    02 Dec 2009

    Dave,
    I agree with you about the fact that a debate on this is not really helpful. May pointed out in her opening remarks that we should be debating solutions, not whether it's important. But I think the framing of this debate was little better than the typical "is it happening", because the question was "is it mankind's defining crisis", which allowed Monbiot and May to put the moral case, and put the impacts into context with other great challenges (poverty, development, health, etc), demonstrating that climate change has the potential to undo the advances we make on every other front (Monbiot was particularly effective describing his personal experience of the impact on Africa).
    
    So although I was kind of disappointed there wasn't more scientific heavyweights, I think for this specific proposition Monbiot and May were great choices. And note that a majority of the 1000+ audience voted for the proposition: That means a majority of those at the debate *do* appreciate the extent of the impacts of climate change.
    
    More details on my liveblog, linked above.
    Steve

    Permalink

11. 

    jaydee2 Posted 5:29 am
    04 Dec 2009

    Why were there no climate SCIENTISTS on the panel?

    Permalink

    1. 

       hapa Posted 5:36 am
       04 Dec 2009

       all of them were busy that day counting snails in the gulf of california

       Permalink