Global Warming Debate - Q&A 3, part 10 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
• Q&A
• climate
• skeptics

[justtex1975]

Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".

[blackghost76]

Actually, the closing slate shows the results.

[amb85]

For the record, the catastrophists got owned in this debate.

[rigel1514]

Crichton, Lindzen, Stott FTW

[jwalker477]

Stott is a boss. "As an engineer, I wouldn't want to cross the Brooklyn bridge if it had been built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces acting on the bridge." OWNED!

[kaewonf8]

Kind of a waste of Lindzen, who knows more on the topic than anyone in the room. But he isn't the most dynamic orator..

[meghaljani]

Gavin Schmidt, What a pathetic twerp!

[bary1234]

@HugoNewman : No, we humans have still plenty of room. Its the blue whales and monkeys and all other animals you can think of that are running out of room.

I think we would be way more energy-efficient if we were clumped up together in one giant house. Not that I would like that, but getting us closer together reduces greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

[HugoNewman]

@bary1234 Of course I'm not recommending the entire world population move to Texas! Of course it would be horrible! It was merely a point of illustration. Obviously by "overpopulation" you don't mean to say that we're running out of room. Clearly we're not. You seem to mean rather that there are too many of us by some other criterion, that criterion being environmental impact. Incidentally, I don't think our distribution makes any difference vis-a-vis greenhouse gas emissions impact.

[bary1234]

@HugoNewman : Self interest is ok, we have to consume living cells to live. We need energy to maintain our complexity.

Its ok if one man kills a rabbit for food. Its ok if one man cuts down a tree and 60 animals lose their nests. When 6 500 000 000 humans kill a rabbit and cuts down a tree it leaves a hole too big for nature to fill.

Thats what overpopulation means. There are too many of us. Nature cant handle us, we are killing species to extinction at an astonishing rate.

[bary1234]

@HugoNewman : Yeah, six people fits to sleep in your bed. 16 people could live in your room. 60 people could live in your house.

Would you like that? That would not be a problem to you?

If we all were in Texas this planet might be able to handle us. Now that we are spread all over the globe we can cause too much damage everywhere.

[HugoNewman]

@bary1234 Finally, you say we're all greedy. Well, this is to divest the term "greedy" of any meaning. Maybe you mean to say we're all self-interested. Is this necessarily a bad thing? As it happens, our pursuit of self-serving ends is what makes civilisation and worldwide cooperation possible at all. When we pursue our ends in earnest we unwittingly serve the interests of others who we might not even know or care about. I recommend you read up on the austrian school of economics/libertarianism.

[HugoNewman]

@bary1234 The entire world population could fit in Texas. Overpopulation isn't a problem. Most of the earth is uninhabited by people. Second of all, you seem to imply that greenhouse pollution at the current population level is a problem. Yet the crises being "predicted", even in worst-case scenarios, are well within the range of changes we could reasonably adapt to as they happen, and at a much much lower economic cost than would be endured were we to start forcefully cutting carbon emissions.