babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
E. May and Monbiot to debate Lomborg on the eve of Copenhagen summit
October 24, 2009 - 12:00am
.
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.
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'
__________________________________
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.