This may be a moot point now since most people are probably already sold on the crisis of climate change. Thanks to politics, Hollywood and mainstream media. But how many of us have heard that the debate on climate change is over? How many of us have actually seen these debates? I haven’t. Until now.
Here’s one of those Global Warming debates. It’s way back in March 2007. I’ve only seen it now. Perhaps because it wasn’t covered by mainstream media, or maybe because I just missed it.
But still if you google it, only less than 10,000 links are available (as of this writing). Try it: "Global Warming is Not a Crisis"
Now let’s try the blogosphere and do a search on Google Blog Search. What da? Only 40 links (as of this writing)?!
No wonder I didn’t see this debate sooner.
Why was this debate not covered extensively when Global Warming is the "most important problem of our time?" I don’t know. I can only guess that maybe it’s because the "skeptics" won over the "alarmists" on this particular debate.
Global Warming is Not a Crisis
Intelligence² US audience confirms 46.22% to 42.22% in favor of the motion.
Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott
Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville
Moderator: Brian Lehrer
Note that the debate is not whether Global Warming is real or not, but whether is it a crisis or not. And by the time the debate was over Michael Crichton and team *won* the debate. So much for consensus.
Here are the links. It’s divided into 10 parts.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
You can also download the transcript [PDF].
Here’s Part 4 where Michael Crichton presented his case:
As for me. I’m gonna watch The Simpsons Movie. I’ve heard that the plot has something to do with the environment. Niiice.
Comments (2)
. . . during my last semester in public health grad school, there was a class called Principles of Public Health, but i referred to it as We’re All F*cked 101, because the general gist of the course was: as public health professionals, this is what you’ll be facing in the next decade or so of your career. it covered everything from potable water to the condition of oceans, CAFOs, public school education, toxins in the food supply, on and on and on and every single thing that it takes a human being to stay alive, be healthy, continue to grow. one of the larger sections covered was Peak Oil, and how we’ve hit it, and how intensely it’s going to affect us as almost EVERYTHING in western society is dependent on oil. (Our text for this section was Heinberg’s The Party’s Over). She especially skewered all of the new Buy Green! that’s occurring as it takes ridiculous amounts of oil to build a hybrid car, currently much more than it will ultimately save. but as the message is Stop Global Warming and not Reduce Oil Consumption which is really the way to go if we’re thinking long term, Buy Green is the new battle cry.
one of the last things the prof said to us before the class ended was: do not be fooled by all of the Global Warming hoopla occurring, that it’s a diversion to keep people from focusing on the real issue which is peak oil, and the resulting panic and change, how imperative it is for the oil powers that be to take control of both ir*n and ir*q because they contain the last large oil supplies on the globe.
do you know of james howard kunstler http://www.kunstler.com/index.html? heinberg’s site is here: http://www.richardheinberg.com/. If you’d like me to send you some copies of his monthly Museletter, let me know.
kate:
The problem with peak oil is that it’s really just “peak light sweet crude”. While oil sands and oil shale are harder to process (and thus spendier to extract), there’s enough buried in Canada and the US to keep our economies humming along for centuries to come, barring other catastrophies. It will drive energy costs to a higher plateau, true enough, but that will just be more incentive to work on safer and more efficient nuclear, fusion, solar, wind, geothermal, and other power sources.
No, global warming isn’t the biggest problem on earth; in fact, I consider it a huge distraction from much more pressing problems, such as soil and water depletion and environmental toxicity. This new emphasis on biofuels will only make these worse, as the midwestern states are beginning to overfarm corn to produce ethanol (which is much more sustainably made from sugarcane, which is under huge and unfortunate tariff barriers, some of which were imposed under Bush and the pre-2006 congress (especially the tariff against Brazilian ethanol, one of the dumbest taxes imposed since the Stamp Act)).
So yeah, while I don’t buy “Peak Oil”, I see global warming as a potential problem being taken far too seriously at the expense of much more pressing and immediate problems. The toxic waste dump at the end of the street, the stressed cornfields of the midwest, and the dead zones at the base of our rivers worry me much, much more.