E. May and Monbiot to debate Lomborg on the eve of Copenhagen summit
October 24, 2009 - 12:00am
.
Comments
December 4, 2009 - 2:59pm
#113 (permalink)
It's pretty sad to see that some people think the best way to make the NDP look better is to tear down the Green Party at every opportunity. It's even sadder that people would place their party's fortunes higher on the priority list than honest discussion on an important issue like climate change
The Munk Debates
I don't know how much coverage this will get, but hopefully it will help put climate change and the upcoming Copenhagen summit on the public radar.
She might have gotten more coverage across Canada, had she stood up for the NDP's Bill, than she could get from this.
Indeed she could have used her support of the NDP Bill, to prop this debate up for even more "climate change publicity".
But I suspect she is not going for climate change publicity, she is going for EMay publicity, as per usual.
Personally, I would make bets on Lord Nigel, I quite like him, even though he is a climate change skeptic. He is a very entertaining guy, who does know his professional stuff. He is very very compelling in his arguments, especially if you do not know your suff when listening to him.
Thus IMV, it is a dangerous thing they are doing, if they get too much publicity, and lose. It could set environmental actions back another decade.
So personally, I tend to support a more hands on, direct applications approach, than stuff that boosts the ego's of the participants, and their followers, and the latter does not do much either way, except perhaps in this case, where it could damage a whole movement, which in turn damages the environment.
The 1700 seats sold out in 7 hours. It will be available as alive stream on the day Dec. 1 Munk Debate live
No guts - no glory. I am not too worried. May and Monbiot are skillful debaters. Lomborgs's forte is his writing. For me the worst aspect of this is that merely by holding the debate at all, lends legitimacy to climate change skepticism. A debate format between debaters of equal stature makes it seem as though both sides of the argument have equal stature, which they don't. In fact only a small minority of scientists deny the importance of climate change.
What could happen is that the deniers are trounced publicly, on the eve of Copenhagen, and the LibranoCon stoogocracy is seen to be allied with the losers, publicly embarrassing the country before the world.
Such as what?
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Scott:
"What could happen is that the deniers are trounced publicly, on the eve of Copenhagen, and the LibranoCon stoogocracy is seen to be allied with the losers, publicly embarrassing the country before the world."
But what it is SET UP to have happen (it's a setup, or why Lomberg, and why the world's largest gold mining corporation's connection) is that technology will be seen as the saviour and we can carry on growing our exploitation of Earth, including its biosphere, confident that Homo sapiens economicus will prevail. I just hope Monbiot can amass the evidence to contradict this.
She might have gotten more coverage across Canada, had she stood up for the NDP's Bill, than she could get from this.
Indeed she could have used her support of the NDP Bill, to prop this debate up for even more "climate change publicity".
Your assumption seems to be that the Greens did not support the NDP bill, or criticize the Liberals for failing to support it. You are wrong on both counts.
Liberals Need to ‘Do Better'
Green Party leader Elizabeth May emphasized the need for Canada to have a strong national commitment to doing its part when it sends a delegation to Copenhagen. "We need that bill to send a message to the rest of the world about how Canadians really feel about our global responsibilities," she said. "Liberal MPs who voted to postpone passage of this bill should be ashamed of themselves. The Liberal Party has already passed this bill last year. If anything, the situation is far more critical today. There is no reason for this additional delay".
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
"Liberals Need To Do Better" is pretty mild language.
And the body of the press release is even milder. In fact, its ambiguous what is being said. IE, the problem is that the Liberals as a body deoliberately shot the bill down, not that only some of them voted for it.
"A handful of Liberal members voted against the delay, along with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois members. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was absent for the vote, as was Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Committee hearings into Bill C-311 have now been extended for 30 days. The Copenhagen negotiations begin on the 7th of December."
Let alone that its only a party press release. If May really wanted the message to get across she'd deliver it with a quip that will get repeated by the media: she's done that a number of times viz Jack Layton.
"no guts-no glory"
You can't be feakin serious, throwing out a mind-numbing cliche like that, which in fact trivializes the implications both of the debate, and the possible results of the debate.
And it takes no guts to do so, one just does it because it is the correct thing to do, for yourself and for those you brought into the life cycle, as well as the planet and everything on it at large.
Not for a ego stroking, because you got to debate about it, with deniers.
Gawd the theatre of the absurb.
Trust the right-wing Munk Centre to have a debate over an issue that has been definitively settled, and giving climate change deniers an undeserved podium to spread their disinformation.
What next, a debate on the right to abortion?
Excellent observation mspector.
Yes, it is a setup, with even a technological fix as fallback,(otherwise why would the Munk Centre choose Lomberg) when all of legitimate science sees little hope in remedial technical intervention to even mitigate the process.
Does anyone believe Monbiot can bring it off with the deck stacked against him? Is he eloquent at the podium?
ya this is risky, and I am not sure that E May is the most eloquent live debator. I've never seen Monbiot talk off the cuff either.
For me the worst aspect of this is that merely by holding the debate at all, lends legitimacy to climate change skepticism.
I agree. And they are not scientists.
I just have sick feeling in my stomach about this, and people who use political forms such as this for self aggrandation in the public arena, as opposed to be affirmative action, often do more harm than good , and set back social justice and environmental causes decades.
Oh dear, is all I can say.
For me the worst aspect of this is that merely by holding the debate at all, lends legitimacy to climate change skepticism.
I agree. And they are not scientists.
not only are some skeptics scientists, they can be top scientitsts:
http://tinyurl.com/yk5xhdw
Babble: where the prospect of a lively public debate is deeply troublingLively but LOADED public debate, Dave, on the subject of species survival on a warming Earth. Or, perhaps you think the Munk people chose debaters from a hat? This is not a feel-good, undergraduate debating forum.
Those who havelived into their middle years, who are environmental thinkers, can look back over the years of capitalist indoctrinations, about first recognizing the way we were going was not sustainable, Soylent Green, Logan's Run, anyone?
Then we were sold the notion, it was no big deal, corporate ideas would fix it, and "some" people could/would survive. Think any movie, that had people living under huge domes that were environmentally controlled, or exodus into space.
So many have come to believe that environmental collapse is a done deal, and once that conceptual framework is accepted, then people switch into survival of the fittest mode, and no rational thought occurs.
Dwelling in the emotions becomes the norm, as does reacting, not acting.
This is debate, can not and will not do anything to help the environment, if people watching it become convinced EMay and Monbiot, are out to lunch on this.
Hell, Sir Nigel, almost had me convinced, and I am by no means naive and I live where Climate Change has impacted the environment the most across Canada.
The hubris of EMay and Monbiot is unquestionable.
That they think they have to right to hold the fate of the environment in their hands, by having a debate, which basically gives the nod to the notion there is something here to be debated, when there isn't, and which has even more significance if they lose, is a nasty piece of personal advancement, at the expense of the environment.
I am am happy to see that other high public profile environmentalists were not so foolish, as to buy into this.
I think a call to action needs to be started to shut this debate down....
Shutting the debate down would play into the hands of the many who want to believe that we anthropogenic climate change believers have something to hide/ are afraid of the "facts" etc etc ... I think that horse left the barn.
Overflow event sign up: http://www.munkdebates.com/membership_tickets/simulcastSignup.cfm I confess I'm not interested enough in what four privileged white people have to say about "mankind" (sic) that I'd actually sign up to go. (Much as I appreciate Monbiot's writings, I am not clear that this kind of debate is worth the GHGs it takes to get him here. I thought he'd stopped flying: a difficult decision that gave his take on climate change a great degree of credibility.)
I would love to know more about people's motivations in going to this, and to know how many are going because they feel they know very little about climate change, and how are going in order to have their beliefs confirmed. Either way, I don't expect much change or awareness to come out of this. If you know the players well enough to come out for this, then it's likely you're already learning about the issue.
Dang, had a whole long post done, thought I had posted it and closed the window, only to find I had not.
Over here I detail my thinking on this.
Watch a 10-minute video with Monbiot demolishing climate-change denier (and scientist) David Bellamy.
For me the worst aspect of this is that merely by holding the debate at all, lends legitimacy to climate change skepticism.
I agree. And they are not scientists.
not only are some skeptics scientists, they can be top scientitsts:
http://tinyurl.com/yk5xhdw
Babble: where the prospect of a lively public debate is deeply troubling
Lindzen is described as a contrarian.
Whether or not climate change is real, the seas are sick and may die because of CO2.
http://www.ocean-acidification.net/
http://www.alannamitchell.com/index.html
would love to mspector, it might put my mind at rest, but can't dial up, but thank you anyway
Exactly. I find it troubling that this is given up as lost before it even begins. Let have a look at the players.
May has over 30 years experience as an activist, and held her own in the 2008 federal leaders debate, although much of the material was out of her field. The environment is her field and she won't go in unprepared. May and MacKay debate CDN Shipping
Monbiot is a skillful debater, well versed in the material. As M. Spector has pointed out above, he reduced denier David Bellamy to gibbering inanity in minutes.
Lomborg's main output has been his writing. AFAIK he is not known as a debater and he is the only one of the four who will not be debating in his native language. He will have to defend himself against accusations of scientific dishonesty.
Lawson is defiantly the wild card in this debate. A leftover Thatcherite finance minister, he stood up to the Iron lady in cabinet over the introduction of the Poll Tax. He is not noted as a debater, but I doubt he could have achieved the political success that he did without serious debating skills. Long out of politics, climate change denial seems to be a late retirement hobby. Nigel Lawson debates Chis Rapley
It will not be a slam dunk for but the case against will be hard to win.
True. Lomborg in particular likes to play this card. He challanged Al Gore to a debate, but Gore declined, offering up the "correct" response:
Predictably, though, this was used against him:
Gore declines to debate Lomborg
Anyway the die is cast. The debate will happen. Only 1700 will see it live and 99.9% of those who will watch the simulcast will have already made their minds up beforehand. As with most public debates it will all be about how it is spun the day after. If the media says the case for won... then they won.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Why would the mainstream media even cover it?
Have they covered past Munk debates?
Lawson, is funny, articulate, and know his numbers. as I said in the other thread I listened to him present his facts and he almost had me convinced the world was good to go on forever as is..
The media is corporate controlled, the decision who won has been made already too.
Just wait and see what Copenhagen brings after this. And it will be too freaking late.
Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find a clip of him debating. I would be interested to see it.
So, is there any point in doing anything?... ever?
I have allowed that there are strong reasons for NOT participating in this debate. But I think that thare are good reasons why the debate should take place, and that we should support those going to bat for us, and to work for a positive out come. I don't think that the end result is written in stone. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but so far I am not.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
The media is corporate controlled, the decision who won has been made already too.
Seems to me you have already made this decision yourself, and you agree with the MSM.
I think you have an exaggerated view of how earth-shattering this debate is going to be. I doubt it will get any publicity outside of Toronto, if that.
Have they covered past Munk debates?
This time the timing is critical. It is just days before the Copenhagen Summit. If it were just Monbiot and Lomborg it would not be such a big deal, but May is well known locally and Lawson is a bigger wheel internationally.
On another front I can't find any clips of Lomborg actually debating anyone. Does anyone? There are losts of clips of him giving speeches. On some occasions he has not given permission for a debate to be filmed. I suspect this is all about "controlling the message". Maybe he is just a crappy debator. My understanding is that this debat will be filmed in it's entirety.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Well, you are correct, I do agree with them, as I think the whole thing was manufactured, to set up a do nothing at Copenhagen.
...but am willing to wait to see how it plays out, one of us will get a big fat "I told ya so" and have to wear it,
and you know in this case I hope it is you, who gets the satisfaction, and I have to wear my pessimistic over-worriedness, as the environmenal movement needs no more set backs.
Unfortunately, I think it will be the other way around, and I will get to say "I told ya so", but it will be a loss anyway, as nothing gets put in place until 2020, when it is too late and EMay is just a foot note in Canadian political histories.
So how about that Lawson link you mentioned in post 27?
Oh, it was not a link, it was on TV,
just go to The Hour's archives for the last month, and his interview will be there, it was the second time I saw him, but I forget for the moment, what station/program the first was, try a google with parameters of Lawson's TV interview circuit. It was a couple of months back.
I couldn't find one from The Hour, but I found one of him debating Chris Rapley (a real scientist). I added the link to my post 25 above. So now there are samples of all the debators except Lomborg. The only Lomborg clips are interviews or speeches.
who won?
and how did you find him?
You tell me - the link is above. It is pretty laid back and polite. Rapley wins on the facts. Actually if you look at all the clips, May, Monbiot and Rapley all win on the facts. Not too surprising as the science does point to a need to act. Lomborg/Lawson will be allowing that human caused climate change is real but it is too costly to do anything about it.
I just went to YouTube and searched for "Nigel Lawson"
hmmm..such is the nature of poor wording of questions statements....
Can't watch the video, have dial up, was looking for a quick review.
"how did you find him" meant as an individual debating the topic, his character style optics per se, as opposed to literally finding him...chuckle
Watch a 10-minute video with Monbiot demolishing climate-change denier (and scientist) David Bellamy.
"Demolishing" is right. That was actually painful to watch...Monbiot completely destroyed the poor dingbat's credibility on national TV.
In December, a major United Nations climate conference will begin in Copenhagen to try to reach a new international treaty on global emissions that will be approved by the United States, China, and India. Climate Cover-Up and Not a Conspiracy Theory offer compelling insights for anyone interested in learning why there is so much confusion about this issue in the media. The Hoggan and Littlemore book focuses exclusively on global warming, touching on such things as the coal industry's efforts to sideswipe mitigation measures. It also focuses on how clever use of language is helping to undermine action on climate change.
In the other book, Gutstein, a retired SFU communications professor, doesn't merely look at how industrial forces have used propaganda to stall action around climate change. He includes case studies showing how business groups have also influenced the debate about medicare, continental integration, DDT, and other areas through slick public-relations techniques that often zero in on key decision makers and sympathetic national media commentators.
The two books both describe how industry-created front groups - such as the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the Global Climate Coalition, Friends of Science, and the Canadian Coalition for Responsible Environmental Solutions - have tried to convince politicians, the media, and the public that there is a vigorous scientific debate about climate change. Weaver said that these campaigns can yield tremendous returns for industry if they stall emission reductions. Right now, he suggested, "ideology" seems to be driving the debate.
"You get far more bang for the buck if you can get the Vancouver Sun editorial staff to believe that this global warming is nothing more than a socialist conspiracy to transfer wealth to the developing world," he said.
However, according to Weaver, there is little scientific debate, notwithstanding what you might read in Canadian newspapers.
Straight
Thanks for putting this up mspector, watched an interview with Gutstein last week, mentioned it and the book in this thread, or another one on the NDP's Bill.
Like to read the book to see if he also exhibited how industry creates, and indeed funds, front groups, and who the people in these fronts groups are affliated with.
But yet here we have May and Monboit, stating to the world in the lead up to Copenhagen, that there is room for debate.
It is quite obvious, that msm has decided to already start painting Copenhagen as a bust, so as I said giving room for debate, as May and Monboit have done, is going to be used by governments around the world to do nothing, as the debate is ongoing.
Trust the right-wing Munk Centre to have a debate over an issue that has been definitively settled, and giving climate change deniers an undeserved podium to spread their disinformation.
What next, a debate on the right to abortion?
Although the debate may be over in some quarters, it is far from settled amongst the general public. Having Ms. May challenge the MSM's favorite naysayers, alongside George Monbiot, will not only generate considerable 'heat' within the auditorium, it will undoubtedly raise her profile, and that of the Green Party, amongst both the media and the electorate. I'm sure she'll do as well, if not better, than her performance in the federal election debate.
Okay, so this is an excercise in promoting emay, and not about the environment at all, and the media will spin it how they want to spin or say not a word.
Although the debate may be over in some quarters, it is far from settled amongst the general public.
That is simply untrue. It is an impression deliberately cultivated by some well-funded purveyors of disinformation, but it is false.
Canadians are badly split on which political party they want to be governed by, but one issue they are overwhelmingly in agreement on is the necessity of action to arrest climate change.
The debate is over.
Fifty-six per cent of the more than 1,000 Canadians surveyed by Harris-Decima didn't believe Canada's approach to climate change is ambitious enough or aggressive enough, with 34 per cent saying it was about right and seven per cent saying it was too ambitious....
Almost three-quarters of respondents said the current focus on the environment is not going far enough....
The telephone survey, conducted Oct. 15-19 [2009], has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.
Source
Press Release (.pdf)
What for that number to change, after emay's forth coming disasterous debate, as the media is going to spin it to Canadians.
It is just freaking mind boggling that she would do this.
Interesting thread.
Future Debate Topics include
Is the Earth Flat? (There are rumours that people fall off the earth at Newfoundland)
Does the Sun Rotate around the earth? (Look where it is in the morning vs the evening)
Are there Germs? (I can't see them)
Did Man live with Dinosaurs? (1 Million BC and Stockwell Day agree)
Does Smoking Cause Cancer? (The Surgeon General is wrong)
And finally the truth to the question
Is the moon made of cheese?
LOL@ madmax so true.......
Looks like there is still a need for debate. It isn't a debate about whether the science is right, but a debate about convincing the climate skeptics: Death Denial.
The only debate that should be taking place is one about how to deal with it, nationally and internationally. Anything else is capitulation to the huddle of deniers and contrarians who are primarily interested in notoriety, the eco-fascists as it were.
But that is what the debate is about! I'm wondering whether some of you are misinterpreting the nature of this debate. Here is the description from the Munk site:
Also, read this exchange between George Monbiot and Paul Kingsnorth.
Post #4 :
"But what it is SET UP to have happen (it's a setup, or why Lomberg, and why the world's largest gold mining corporation's connection) is that technology will be seen as the saviour and we can carry on growing our exploitation of Earth, including its biosphere, confident that Homo sapiens economicus will prevail. I just hope Monbiot can amass the evidence to contradict this."
This will be the pitch. Technology rides to the rescue - so don't sweat it. folks. Just have to catch up on the cultural lag.
Monbiot's great, don't worry. Money won't help them win the debate. If this exposes a propaganda agenda, then so much the better.
You quite miss the point of Lomborg's selection.
Wikipedia:
He sounds like the perfect guy for the other side of this debate. What's the problem?
Care to reiterate george, sometimes people need a bigger edition so they can see....
Those "longer term" solutions for climate change, ask us to depend on his ideas, from "science", for massive counter measures (down the road), like the salting of the atmosphere with reflective particles that act to counter the sun's warming. Put money into such crap shoots instead of focusing on reductions now, extending into the future.
Capital just loves this guy. And because we all want a technological solution, it's a winner from the get-go. Seen the statistics on the Great Misled's ideas about climate change lately? (Not to worry, "what's the problem"? An Oxford debate is all that the Great Misled is waiting for to make up the collective mind.
Excellent points, and kinda along the lines of the new technology by Gates, where all this tech shit could make the problems worse than they ar already.
The question is I suppose, are people to entrenched into believing that technology can fix all?
Either way this debate is a mug's game, and EMay will be directly responsible for the environment being shelved.
Apparently this did not go to well, as there is no comments or tweets about it on the Green Party website, even though they were touting it before it happened.
Wasn't too impressed by Monbiot, when he was on The Hour last night, certainly did not meet the level of "charisma" on climate change that has been stated here.
I didn't read them- but I saw blog titles on it on the GPC site. The titles and leads suggested they thought it went well.
Oh...you must have gone there after I did then, when I was there the only thing thre was tweets from yesterday and nothing updated.
Will go look again....
The only comment I could find was from, unsurprisingly, Dan Grice
which actually did not say much....
Besides the 'official' GPC site member blogs, there is this:
http://canadiangreens.feedcluster.com/
Which generally has both more volume and more of an assortment, and a number of people who always write more thoughtfully than what you get on the official site. The blog aggregator is handled by the dissident crowd. But it is ecumenical ,and the more mainstream bloggers there write better than what you get at the GPC blogs. And a lot of the better blogposts at the GPC site will be copy anyway to the independent sites and run in that aggregator.
Thanks Ken, went and had a look, and still was only Daniel's comment...
http://www.camillelabchuk.ca/2009/12/01/watch-elizabeth-may-and-george-monbiot-take-on-climate-laggards-in-tonights-munk-debate/
http://www.christindal.ca/2009/11/30/george-and-me/
have also been there all day.
May was uninspiring, but it's hard to argue in a debate when the fix is clearly already in. How many times can you say the science is unequivocal?
The Copenhagen conference hasn't been canceled. Does that mean that May won or lost?
I thought the debate went well, except for the moment where Elizabeth May's mic was cut. She continued speaking (er... shouting) and the optics of that weren't so good. I haven't read Lomborg's books, but his performance was weak and his arguments less than persuasive. It's rather dubious to assert that if we take action on climate change, it would be at the expense of things like foreign aid. It's not like we can't afford to deal with the problem. We have money for wars and bankers. Besides, wouldn't it be more expensive to maintain the status quo? That would require money for fossil fuels and money to deal with the negative impacts of climate change. Also, Lomborg didn't have anything to say about the warming feedback problem. Anyway, I looked this morning and was surprised that I didn't come across any news analysis. All I found was this blog by Tyler Hamilton: Munk debate on climate change gets it wrong.
At the end of evening, the opinion had shifted among the 1,100 attendees: 53% of people agreed with the monition and 47% were in opposition.
Well here is a link to the actual debate. I find it interesting that Green Party blogs are seen as the go to source for post debate analysis.
It appeared to be close fought but I think that the deniers were exposed as frauds and liars. Lawson and Lomborg don't even agree with each other. Lawson still trying to argue that there has been no warming this century. As usual the deniers were on the defensive, forced to use straw man arguments and blatant falsehoods in a vain attempt to fight it to a draw.
Ya, I read those leads ken, never followed the links though as they were yesterday before the debates statements...stories....
So apparently then EMay and Monbiot lost....thanks HS
May's best point was when she asked why Lomborg wasn't standing in front of the economic bailout and asking if this was the best way to be spending money and revealing him for the hypocritical establishment propogandist that he is. But she should have stood by the principle and ethics of that statement (probably a new position for her to be in) rather than getting riled up by the debating tactics and engaging in a shouting match. You're right, hsft, the optics were not good and compromised her very excellent point. But the incident further proved that it is impossible to "debate" with a shadow puppet.
Monbiot was stellar throughout, but during the rebuttal period seemed struck dumb at the audacious claims made by his 'opponents.'
Personally, I think the reason people switched their minds to the Con side (although the Pro side still had a majority), was because of the way the Munk Foundation phrased the question in the superlative: "most pressing"? "defining crisis"? It might be, but if it is not, that doesn't mean that we have any more time to act.
I don't think that we can read too much into this result. What 1100 gliterati who paid big bucks to atend a gala event think means much less to me than the huge numbers that watched Monbiot on The Hour or heard the mini debate on CBC Radio. I think that the Munk attendees are probably very conservative and pre-disposed to the denyist camp. Nevertheless the pro side remains the majority.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Watched Monbiot on The Hour was unimpressed to the max....he should have stayed home and saved the environment....
Scott now you speak against the Monk, when it is apparent May and Monbiot lost....
slim majority.... that is probably decreasing.....
Here in the old DDR I had to stay up into the wee hours to watch the debate but it was worth it. While it is sad that May lost her composure at one point I thought she stood head and shoulders above the others both in her passion and intellectual rigour. It was my first chance to see her in action and I was very impressed: she is very sharp indeed, and quite fearless it seems. And she was right to cut through the nicey-nicey course the debate had followed to that point, and call Lomborg out as the corrupt, snake-oil salesman he is. Charismatic, smooth and utterly lacking in substance, his banal charm fronts the unspeakable suffering our carbon habit has wrought on other parts of the planet.
That the audience drifted slightly to the denier camp just confirms how woefully out of step some of my countrymen are on this matter and how deeply reactionary the Canadian political landscape has become. 'Let them eat cake' writ large, a thoroughly repulsive lumpenproletariat in fancy dress. There is an awful lot of work to be done.
Agreed, and the question itself was vague and loaded as Catchfire mentioned. All in all though, I think it is a positive that they had this debate. It certainly emphasized how climate change will hit developing countries the hardest, and we can't say that often enough.
Well, a lecture series would have been far more intellectually honest. Let Lawson and Lomborg sit in the audience and lob idiot-stick questions rather than give them a seat of privilege and equal footing.
Exactly catchfire.. which was my basic point on this from the beginning..
I'm watching the debate right now. I don't understand why May's mic was cut when it was Lomborg who interrupted her. Lawson is showing himself to be a real dinosaur when he's talking about oil supplies.
I don't understand why May's mic was cut when it was Lomborg who interrupted her.
I thought it was unfair that they cut Elizabeth's mic. It sends a signal that she did something egregious, and then to hear the exchange between the two continue with her mic cut - bad optics. I wonder whether she realised her mic was cut. She seemed pretty miffed. I gather Elizabeth May can't stand Lomborg.
That EMay read was freaking hilarious, entertainment value 150% minimum, as May was the one who agreed to the debate, thereby giving them credibility the was unwarranted from the get go.
...it did not take me much longer than 15 seconds, at most, to realize the folly of her actions when Scott first posted this debate.
It went apparently, though I cannot watch the debate, worse than what I figured/suggested about this.
That she and Monbiot did this foolish foolish thing when this controversy is happening, is almost picture perfect coincidence eh?!
And she is still blaming everyone but herself for this foolishness, which is a "at best" statement. The timing is almost too perfect.
The Munk Debates still have me wondering how so many good folks (CBC “Ideas,” Munk centre, etc) got it so wrong. I hate being part of a side-show circus and that’s what any “debate” with Lomborg and Lawson has to be
I thought we spoke well and very approriately to the show's audience. Strombo was very supportive. The way Monbiot dealt with the climategate e-mails was classic. I am at a loss as to why you think it would have been better if he had stayed home.
No. I support the idea of the debate itself. It was giving a lot of credence to the opinions of the studio audience that I objected to. I know the debate was fixed to a certain extent but it is not a winning strategy to abandon the field to your opponants.
That is not apparent at all. I think that May/Monbiot won it and exposed some of the deniers lies in the process, as I have explained above. Why do you say they lost? Have you watched the debate?
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
We don't debate Holocoaust deniers because to do so legetimizes their argument which is repugnant. That is why we don't denate climate deniers.
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
I don't understand why May's mic was cut when it was Lomborg who interrupted her.
I thought it was unfair that they cut Elizabeth's mic. It sends a signal that she did something egregious, and then to hear the exchange between the two continue with her mic cut - bad optics. I wonder whether she realised her mic was cut. She seemed pretty miffed. I gather Elizabeth May can't stand Lomborg.
She was quite impassioned, to the point where her passion got the better of her. Still, I thought that both she and Monbiot did a better job of presenting their arguments. I was a bit surprised that the Munk people included a guy who was sanctioned in his own country for academic dishonesty.
The one question they missed asking of this pair is this: If you're (Lomborg & Lawson) so concerned about helping poor people now, then maybe you could point to something you've written arguing for more aid that didn't deal with climate change. I'm guessing there's nothing.
remind, anyone who's read Babble for a while will know that you never miss a chance to slam the Greens and will interpret your comments accordingly.
Although I watched with special glasses (being a huge Monbiot fan and having quite a bit of respect for May), I thought the debate went well (but for the mic thing). Lomborg struck me as extremely nervous at the beginning, and weak throughout. By his tone and demeaner, it seemed like he wasn't even convinced of his own arguments - he was just playing a part (for his own personal benefit I assume.) Lawson didn't seem credible at all. May was better than I expected - she conveyed a lot of information and was sincere. Monbiot was solid. Funny about that audience though. I suspect it consisted mostly of people with a huge personal carbon footprint. Voting CON allows them to sleep better at night I suppose.
We don't debate Holocoaust deniers because to do so legetimizes their argument which is repugnant. That is why we don't denate climate deniers.
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
Yeah, really. Just when we were looking so good in Copenhagen and all.
Reefer, never doubted that for a second, as it is the same but opposite lense through which I view your posts, as well as scott's and HSFT's... May can do no wrong..
when the wrong she did was huge, like FM said:
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
and it is a typical EMay move that actually harms the environment, not helps it...
We don't debate Holocoaust deniers because to do so legetimizes their argument which is repugnant. That is why we don't denate climate deniers.
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
If healthy debate harms your position, maybe you didn't have much a position to start with. I learned a lot from watching the debates and I think there should be more of them, not less.
Your claims that "this was political debate for entertainment" is hyperbole and the statement "the issue has been set back for years" is completely unsubstantiated.
Reefer, never doubted that for a second, as it is the same but opposite lense through which I view your posts, as well as scott's and HSFT's... May can do no wrong..
It may appear that way on this board but I am equivocal when it comes to May and the Greens. I do find myself having to come to the Greens defence as a way of balancing the slanted perspectives of an overwhelmingly partisan NDP crowd.
Healthy debate? Yes we should have more maybe they can convince everyone there is no man made climat change just as they convinced those at the Munk Centre to change thier minds...
It is not hyperole, there was absolutely no point to it other than entertainment.... nothing could be accomplished from it unless it was to destroy the crediility of man made climate change occuring.
Are you stating that was the purpose?
If people watching the debate last evening changed their minds, imagine how many more are today after viewing it, or rethiking it,and how many more will in the future...
That you cannot see the eroding pattern established is mind boggling to me..
No sadly it is not, people's minds were changed to the negative, they were NOT changed to the positive.....
not sure what you Green Party people are not getting about that....
Post #4:
"Scott:
"What could happen is that the deniers are trounced publicly, on the eve of Copenhagen, and the LibranoCon stoogocracy is seen to be allied with the losers, publicly embarrassing the country before the world."
But what it is SET UP to have happen (it's a setup, or why Lomberg, and why the world's largest gold mining corporation's connection) is that technology will be seen as the saviour and we can carry on growing our exploitation of Earth, including its biosphere, confident that Homo sapiens economicus will prevail. I just hope Monbiot can amass the evidence to contradict this."
An even split in audience reaction is not bad. That that percentage of our species has moved on from wishful thinking to real time isuggests we may be at the cusp of recognizing something's up. But! Changes in lifestyle!!!!! (What, I have to do THAT?) are in the back of the mind of all, in this, and why the "Borgs" and the "Munks" play this psychological game.
We don't debate Holocoaust deniers because to do so legetimizes their argument which is repugnant. That is why we don't denate climate deniers.
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
If healthy debate harms your position, maybe you didn't have much a position to start with. I learned a lot from watching the debates and I think there should be more of them, not less.
Your claims that "this was political debate for entertainment" is hyperbole and the statement "the issue has been set back for years" is completely unsubstantiated.
So you would support a public debate on the holocaust? Who would you suggest, Daniel Pipes and Ernst Zundel? "Two haters, one topic", we could call it.
Hyperbole is what you do. I offered a supposition supported by the poll demonstrating a very narrow support of the climate change by the audience. What do you have?
there was an 8% change in public opinion belief from the beginning to the end of the debate, that is a pretty damn quick % drop, eh...
There was no win by May and Monbiot...that is for sure....
this compounds their having the debate
Edited (Whoops...wrong forum!)
I don't a thing about Lawson, but in the case of Lomborg I am sure that May and Monibot were aware that in addition to Lomborg's two better known books "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It" there are these three (far less known, but in my opinion better and more thought provoking) books bearing Lomborg's name which deal with that very question:
Global Crises, Global Solutions (2004, new edition 2009)
How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (2006)
Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems: Costs and Benefits (2007)
I don't a thing about Lawson, but in the case of Lomborg I am sure that May and Monibot were aware that in addition to Lomborg's two better known books "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It" there are these three (far less known, but in my opinion better and more thought provoking) books bearing Lomborg's name which deal with that very question:
Global Crises, Global Solutions (2004, new edition 2009)
How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place (2006)
Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems: Costs and Benefits (2007)
I haven't read any of these books but from the summaries I've seen on the net, they appear to be more of the same crap he was arguing tonight. That we should spend our money on x instead of y (y being climate change) to get the biggest effect.
What I'm trying to ascertain is does he really care about fixing the problems or is this just a misdirection?
We don't debate Holocoaust deniers because to do so legetimizes their argument which is repugnant. That is why we don't denate climate deniers.
I do not oppose scientists engaged in scientific debate, but this was political debate for entertainment. The issue has been set back years.
If healthy debate harms your position, maybe you didn't have much a position to start with. I learned a lot from watching the debates and I think there should be more of them, not less.
Your claims that "this was political debate for entertainment" is hyperbole and the statement "the issue has been set back for years" is completely unsubstantiated.
So you would support a public debate on the holocaust? Who would you suggest, Daniel Pipes and Ernst Zundel? "Two haters, one topic", we could call it.
Hyperbole is what you do. I offered a supposition supported by the poll demonstrating a very narrow support of the climate change by the audience. What do you have?
Unlike you, I'm no expert on the holocaust but I understand it's an historical fact based on some pretty solid physical evidence. So, if you want to debate against it, go for it but you might look pretty silly.
The work on AGW, however, is still very much a work in progress. AFAIK, nobody has yet come up with a model that accurately maps to reality as we see it. That's why there is a big range between the "best case" and "worst case" scenarios.
And this debate wasn't even on anthropogenic global warming; it was on the question of whether AGW should be our highest priority, which is a bit of an abstraction. So, you can equate it to a debate on the holocaust if you want; I don't see it that way.
You claim this debate was only a "political debate for entertainment" and then further claim "the issue has been set back for years"
How are both of those possible? As "support", you offer the audience poll. Which of your claims does the poll support and how?
RM, you ignore the degree to which the "audiences" everywhere want (need) to believe that all will be well. The LomMunk folks are of the vaiety that will use this psychological fact, play it to the limit, to gain their ends. Anyone not a water walker would have gotten damned cold and wet this summer in attempting to walk large areas of what a year ago was thick old ice in the polar regions. If you can find respect for a position in which corporate defenders argue in favour of a crap shoot, there's not point in arguing against your position. Faith is...well, faith. But a great many in the "audiences" have taken hope from Lomborg, because he is, well, an authority.
Speaking of holocaust, I'm sure you've read accounts of the "Eichmann experiment", aimed at determining the degree of faith attached to the wearing of white lab coats in a laboratory, the prevalence of the authoritarian personality? ANd the number of people ready to turn up the voltage?
george it is mind boggling to me, that some are so short sighted that they do not see the implications of May's and Monbiot's actions in validating Lomborg and Lawson's positions, and how their loss makes it even worse...
as you are exactly correct about the psychological fact in play here...people will "move along, nothing to see here" and Copenhagen will be a bust....because of this, the UEA debacle and the global economic recession.
Copenhagen was a bust long before the Munk debate, and regardless of my esteem for May and Monbiot, I cannot hold them personally responsible for its failure. I think it unlikely that people will move along and continue to ignore global warming for much longer; it isn't going away, quite the opposite, and the deniers must inevitably wither and die, like old nazis, anti-women's suffrage and pro-slavery types in the face of reality.
More interesting for me are the lengths to which Canadians are willing to go to deny this reality and the debate provides a peerless illustration of the power of this collective fantasy. With each passing year reality grows ever more clamorous and it seems the general public responds by rejecting it ever more strenuously. Witness the increasingly psychotic narratives being floated to provide alternatives to that reality, with arguments about communist world governments and global conspiracies of climate scientists - these evidence the increasing desperation of a population riven by internal contradiction. On the one hand, an established, habituated, high consumption culture that assures some material comfort - for the time being at least - on the other, a looming reality which threatens to replace this known quantity with possible hardship, at the very least a change from established ways, possibly involving lower consumption levels. I think it is entirely human that this latter engenders deep, psychologically rooted resistance, particularly in a culture that in global terms has little conception of real hardship. When was the last time famine or crop failure stalked this mighty land of ours? The entire western industrial concept is rotting from the material base up and the public perception of this is expressed in the embrace of increasingly authoritarian regimes, an orgy of last-minute easy consumption - the credit crisis - brazen, last kick at the can profit-taking from the economic elite and a growing generalized FEAR.
At this point I am personally at a loss as to how to proceed and incline to the view that only further, harder shocks to the system will eventually push the masses past the denial stage into constructive engagement with these terrifying issues. For me the debate illustrates that providing people with the necessary information is insufficient. Looking for a metaphor I consider the case of the boatload of Jewish refugees denied safe harbour in Canada at the outset of the second world war. There MUST have been sufficient information available, even then, for Canadians to intuit the nature of the Nazi regime, Krystalnacht etc yet STILL we responded in a sociopathic fashion.
But I cannot see how continuing to stress the importance of reality as the final arbiter of our course can ever be a false option. Perhaps we just have to write off the majority and direct our efforts to the next generation in the hope that they are less contaminated by the death trip the rest of our culture is on.
But as I say, I really don't know. As far as I'm concerned the debate that I watched hit all the right buttons, and the response just deepens my low opinion of our so-called educated public. Perhaps M and M committed the unforgivable sin of sailing a little too close to the truth, and were punished accordingly. An almost worthless culture, I am tempted to conclude; petulant, increasingly selfish and stupefied by material abundance. I was just in Toronto for a visit and had forgotten how harshly it impacts the senses, the anarchic urban planning, near total subservience to the automobile, the brutal ugliness of most public space; and all floated on honeyed corporate feel-good messages, plastered all over the physical and media environment. My educated middle class friends bought local organic produce, collecting it in freshly acquired SUVs, made donations to Oxfam while their tax dollars build a rash of superjails and the new security state. Confusion abounds.
It seems clear that because of our current privileged position we are doomed to bring up the rear, dragged kicking and screaming back into the real world long after the rest of the planet has caught the wind. Look at the holdouts in Copenhagen, an Anglo-American axis of reaction: Australia, Canada, the United States and England. For me, this must be determined by the material circumstances of these cultures, and the ingrained sense of entitlement that attends them.
I see little cause for optomism. Actually, none. But I applaud Monbiot and May for fighting the good fight, to the best of their abilities and think it bad form to stand their efforts on their head and accuse them of feeding the forces of reaction they so strenuously resist.
I belong to no party but think a red green coalition might be the way forward.
...and Copenhagen will be a bust....
That might be a good thing: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
I see little cause for optomism. Actually, none. But I applaud Monbiot and May for fighting the good fight, to the best of their abilities and think it bad form to stand their efforts on their head and accuse them of feeding the forces of reaction they so strenuously resist.
...and Copenhagen will be a bust....
That might be a good thing: Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist
hsf - check your link.
RM, you ignore the degree to which the "audiences" everywhere want (need) to believe that all will be well. The LomMunk folks are of the vaiety that will use this psychological fact, play it to the limit, to gain their ends. Anyone not a water walker would have gotten damned cold and wet this summer in attempting to walk large areas of what a year ago was thick old ice in the polar regions. If you can find respect for a position in which corporate defenders argue in favour of a crap shoot, there's not point in arguing against your position. Faith is...well, faith. But a great many in the "audiences" have taken hope from Lomborg, because he is, well, an authority.
Speaking of holocaust, I'm sure you've read accounts of the "Eichmann experiment", aimed at determining the degree of faith attached to the wearing of white lab coats in a laboratory, the prevalence of the authoritarian personality? ANd the number of people ready to turn up the voltage?
George, this comes down to principles. I think that the better educated people are, the better the quality of democracy. You can't improve the world by suppressing dissenting opinion. I think that public airing of dissenting views is the best way to the truth.
It's interesting that FM brought up the case of the holocaust deniers. Here's a case where some countries have criminalized the practise of arguing with the accepted version of history. I like what Noam Chomsky said about that: It would be a poor tribute to the victims of the holocaust to adopt the practises of their persecutors (loosely quoted).
I am familiar with the Eichmann experiment but I'd say you and I learned different lessons from it. I think the solution is to educate the people and get them to think for themselves. You seem to think the solution is to have people you agree with wearing the white coats.
Finally, I'd like to address the issue of faith. We all like to think we work from knowledge and logic but the fact is if people tried to work only from first-hand knowledge, they would never cross the street. So, faith is a necessary part of life. I have faith that if people are treated as citizens and are given information, most of them will do the right thing. That is the foundation of democracy.
What's the basis of your faith?
george it is mind boggling to me, that some are so short sighted that they do not see the implications of May's and Monbiot's actions in validating Lomborg and Lawson's positions, and how their loss makes it even worse...
as you are exactly correct about the psychological fact in play here...people will "move along, nothing to see here" and Copenhagen will be a bust....because of this, the UEA debacle and the global economic recession.
remind, you've already admitted to having a bias against the Green Party. It's pretty obvious that if someone from the NDP had said exactly the same things as May, you'd be spinning this in the opposite direction.
Give it up.
Good post, Merowe.
"I am familiar with the Eichmann experiment but I'd say you and I learned different lessons from it. I think the solution is to educate the people and get them to think for themselves. You seem to think the solution is to have people you agree with wearing the white coats."
That is a cockeyed interpretation of an experiment aimed at demonstratinvg the presence of the authoritarian personality. I am no authoritarian. The only bloody reason I brought it up was to suggest that a huge number of people would flock to Lomborg, the "scientist and authority".
You treat that "debate" as some sort of schoolboy exercise, taken from your experience in youth that hearing all sides is the democratic way. That is the height of naivete. I introduced the psychological factor because you fail to see that at work out there.
As for your belief that the better educated the populace, the more likely a reasonable outcome, and your "faith" that if they are given the correct interpretation, they will come through for you...I have found myself in deep dung for talking about the Great Unread, even while they read the tracts denying climate change and in preparation for a rapturous meeting with their maker.
What's the "basis of my faith"? Trying, since 1970, to get through the insularity, political activism. "Faith" is a deadly concept, mate.
Here's where we have positioned ourselves. As Merowe says:
"But I cannot see how continuing to stress the importance of reality as the final arbiter of our course can ever be a false option. Perhaps we just have to write off the majority and direct our efforts to the next generation in the hope that they are less contaminated by the death trip the rest of our culture is on."
That is the sad, sad position we are in now, having used up the inheritance of the following generations. Homo sapiens is really something else.
George, I never accused you of being an authoritarian. I was merely attempting to point out what I see as a flaw in your logic. On the one hand, you bring up an experiment that illustrates the dangers of uncritically deferring to authority. And you speak of Lomborg as being the authority in this case (although he is a statistician, not a climate scientist). On the other hand, you appear to want people to uncritically defer to the scientific authorities who endorse AGW. You can't have it both ways.
How are people to know which scientific authorities are not to be questioned? Are you going to tell them?
When I'm unsure of a position, I try to get different perspectives before I come to a personal conclusion. Which is why I find these debates interesting and helpful. What are you suggesting? That I make up my mind first and only listen to those viewpoints that reinforce my first intuition?
One last shot at it...think sociologically about the application of the psychological concept "authoritarian". It is the PEOPLE OUT THERE watching the debate, not blessed Lomborg or myself, or you, in question. Did many who watched the blessed "debate" get sucked in by the "scientific" chatter of the "authority" because of their tendency to accept ( make judgements on) authoritarian principles?
That's gotta be it in my attempts to bring you to focus on the AUDIENCE, not the participants, RF. That's why the sponsors of the debate (the cagey bastards) set it up in that fashion. That is the effect Lomborg has. This is an attempt at partially explaining why people get sucked in by such people.
Believing in the word of the vast majority of scientists on this question is not to completely defer to "authority", but it does indicate my "faith" in their position, their science. I have no "faith" in the Great Unread coming down on the side of rationality in this, the 11th hour.
I like what you're smoking, RM....George, you should try some, it's good stuff!
Who didn't see this coming? Elizabeth May and Monbiot blew it. From the spinners in this thread you would think they won the debate. They LOST!!! First this is publicised as something good, then when lost, its blown off. I read the May link and it sounds bitter. People write things like that when the LOSE not when they win. I believe there were a significant number who suggested this was a bad road to go down and it was. The Environmentalists are taking a beating and this debate didn't help matters.
If you leave a room with less support then you walked in with, you are losing ground not gaining ground. Talk about going backwards. There is no excuse for this, there just isn't.
I have notice a slip in public support ever since Global Warming was relabelled into climate change. Climate Change opens the door to way too much speculation. People are getting confused. I would have thought that a pair of superior debators and gifted speakers would have won the damn debate even if it was the wrong thing to do in the first place.
Not only did they give legitimacy to their opponents they lost the debate too and there is no hiding that fact.
Unfortuneately there is no reward for those who said this was a bad idea. Canadas opinion of global warming is getting colder.
autoworker, when people start to make fun of my handle, I can tell they've run out of intelligent things to say. In your case, it seems to have happened sooner than most.
One last shot at it...think sociologically about the application of the psychological concept "authoritarian". It is the PEOPLE OUT THERE watching the debate, not blessed Lomborg or myself, or you, in question. Did many who watched the blessed "debate" get sucked in by the "scientific" chatter of the "authority" because of their tendency to accept ( make judgements on) authoritarian principles?
That's gotta be it in my attempts to bring you to focus on the AUDIENCE, not the participants, RF. That's why the sponsors of the debate (the cagey bastards) set it up in that fashion. That is the effect Lomborg has. This is an attempt at partially explaining why people get sucked in by such people.
Believing in the word of the vast majority of scientists on this question is not to completely defer to "authority", but it does indicate my "faith" in their position, their science. I have no "faith" in the Great Unread coming down on the side of rationality in this, the 11th hour.
And what is it exactly that "makes people out there" intrinsically different from you or I? They're people, too. They're citizens. They have votes. Who are you to tell them who they should or shouldn't listen to? There are times when the "vast majority" is wrong.
And why do you insist that Lomborg is an "authority"? Authority of what? Statistics?
I don't believe in plutocracy. Or technocracy. I believe in democracy. And that means believing in people.
Apparently a few Green Party people...
No it doesn't, nor does the ignoring of the rammifications on the part of some.
Could not agree more....as well as with this below...
Not only is there no rewared, Elizabeth May has made things much much worse....as per usual, and now the ground lost has to be regained