Comments on: Munk debate on climate change gets it wrong

By: Bill Hoodikoff

Bill Hoodikoff — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:08:52 +0000

I am one of those rare species that will not take the word of any politician whether right, middle or left. The most disturbing is when the media spew their political poison on the public. I was so happy to finally hear some meaningfull debates especially on climate change. I just wish the Munk debate would continue on this important subject…..I am so sick and tired of listening to only one view point, this makes me very, very suspicious and I raise up a red flag for “ALERT, DANGER, BEWARE….what is their hidden agenda?
We always need to hear both sides of the story.

By: What if you’re wrong?

What if you’re wrong? — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:01:20 +0000

[...] society from fossil fuels to zero-carbon and renewable options. In his response to the Munk Debate, Tyler Hamilton lays out a few: “I mean, even in the unlikely event that climate change science shows us we overreacted, is [...]

By: Darklamp

Darklamp — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:45:43 +0000

What I was surprised with was the swing of the online poll in the webcast before the debate and after. 61% in favour and 39% opposed the resolution before the debate and after the debate 53% of people agreed with the motion and 47% were in opposition. I believe there was about 1500 watching online.

Whatever was said did not change my mind, since it was a lot of hot air being blown around!

By: Patricia

Patricia — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:52:05 +0000

I guess by now everyone knows that the final result was 56% in favour so the deniers managed to convince 5% of the audience to switch to their side. Very scary. I think I am going to look for property in Western Antartica which I gather could be very desirable in a few years.

By: admin

admin — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:01:58 +0000

I do find it interesting that someone is labelled a “silly pig” and “rude and obnoxious” for her informed passion on a subject matter, and for her honest arguments. We Canadians, so polite and proper we are, simply can’t tolerate passionate argument. Yes, I guess if you follow strict Hart House debating rules, Lawson and Lomborg scored points for throwing out half-truths and outright wrong information without backing it up. That is quite the skills. The words “slippery” and “dismissive” come to mind, which are good things to be I guess when simply trying to win a debate and not truly inform is the goal of an evening. I should add that the issue being debated set up May and Monbiot to lose. Also, by putting together Lomborg and Lawson — the former believing in global warming but not decisive action, and the latter denying it altogether — it merely muddied the waters and divided the attentions of May and Monbiot, who were aligned in their views. Technically speaking, you may be right — Lomborg and Lawson did win, in much the same way Stephen Harper has been able to win over enough of the electorate by spinning, bending and ignoring facts.

By: Patricia Warwick

Patricia Warwick — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:11:44 +0000

I was at one of the webcast sites and I came away from it really furious that the two deniers were given such a platform. I felt that May and Monbiot did a great job under the circumstances.

Lawson in particular threw out wild numbers, started to justify them (at least he said he would) but never did. Just woolly platitudes. Same for Lomborg. I was particularly surprised at his ending remark that the difference at the end of the century would be 6 hours … did I mishear him. I wish someone had asked him to justify that number.

It was distressing that the original vote on the motion was only 61% in favour but that may reflect a biased audience. Although the organizers said they would post the results of the second vote on their web site I have yet to find it.

By: Remi

Remi — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:12:08 +0000

I had listned to an interview with Bjorn and Monbiot on CBC radio before the event and was also disappointed. When debating what problem we should focus on, neither person pointed out that all these problems that we face are all symptoms of a larger issue: our society is based on a socioeconomic system that relies on constant growth (i.e. exponential growth). Exponential growth in any natural system cannot be sustained. It results in many problems, including having an ecological footprint that is larger then the earth, climate change, fisheries collapse, etc…
We need to address the problem and aim for a no-growth society. Some of the symptoms, like climate change are so threatening, that they need to be addressed as well, but let’s not kid ourselves that we can continue on a ecomic growth pathway even if we are powered by PV or wind turbines.

By: Mike Brigham

Mike Brigham — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:17:29 +0000

Thanks for covering this so articulately Tyler. I really wanted to be there but couldn’t and now am glad that I didn’t. I like you am biased, but I find myself resenting more and more, so called experts who are given time at a podium who really don’t know their subject matter well, and are given to spewing misinformation like it is fact.

It’s unfair for the likes of May and Monbiot to have to do battle of wits with unarmed opponents.

By: K. Reese

K. Reese — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:59:23 +0000

False. I was there, and Elizabeth May made a silly pig of herself. She was rude and obnoxious, and completely blew herself out of the water with her Lesotho crap. I found it hilarious that halfway out of her mouth, the “king of Lesotho” thing didn’t sound so good and she lowered her voice very quickly. Her and George – with his terrible cliches and tropes – were the worse debaters by quite a bit. No mention of the feedback loop, which was unbelievable.