Global Warming Debate - Brenda Ekwurzel, part 7 of 10

The goal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• IQ2
• global
• warming
• crisis
• debate
• intelligence
• squared
• brian
• lehrer
• wnyc
• brenda
• ekwurzel
• climate
• skeptics

[1337bard]

Her whole speech was nothing than a prophetic gibberish in her theory. There was no scientific evidence in proving CO2 is the cause.

[andharvey8]

Extinctions? Total Crap. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is today, and the species that are here today SOMEHOW survived the experience. That includes polar bears as well. What a load of crap.

[flyoverjoe]

@joeglimmix I'm an idiot. Of course you're right.

[joeglimmix]

@flyoverjoe room temperature. so we can all walk around in our underpants and be comfortable

[sconwaysmith]

"Oceans playing catch-up"? What crap!! The atmospheric CO2 levels FOLLOW the oceans. And who says the earth is more fragile than humans? Humans, animals and plantlife alike are ALL extraordinarily adaptable, and in very short timescales. Also, CO2 life/decay time in the atmosphere is NOT in the hundreds of years, but in the vast majority studies, it's between 5 & 15 years - only the IPCC chose to select a study figure that was greater than 100 years. Crisis? What crisis!

[jwalker477]

No, Brenda, the earth is not like a credit card.

[1337bard]

@ReverendBrownbuttock How is it obvious that I am unaware? The only thing that's obvious is your smugness.

[ReverendBrownbuttock]

@1337bard You obviously are unaware of the fact that 'scientific theory' is not the same as a normal theory. In fact, a scientific theory is made up of lots of individual scientific facts and thus has much more weight than one single scientific fact.

[flyoverjoe]

What's the ideal global temperature?

[muetter]

@1337bard neither did the opposing side prove their arguments with actual data. If you're concerned about a lack of sufficient data, then I recommend you consult the swaths of peer-reviewed scientific papers confirming what Dr. Ekwurzel is claiming rather than consulting this unscientific debate. I used to work with Dr. Ekwurzel and can vouch for her as a top rate scientist. If you need help locating peer-reviewed scientific literature, let me now

[slytown]

@Chronosaur To a certain extent, yea, in addition to her statements. Investing in renewable energy just makes sense in certain regions and we need to adapt, but the "signs" of our impact on the biosphere is just too disconnected. If we are to make those changes in our habitation/consumption, then it is much better to understand what we are dealing with than pump all of our resources into dropping CO2 (which is fairly nonsensical) and increasing nuclear power (ridiculous.)