Global Warming

[Danielle Masters]

But Jeff if they feel this is an important issue to debate then why will not one of them step up and debate for opposing view? Debate clubs are not always about pushing your own views but also about learning all sides. A good debater can agree all sides, so are you saying the debate club at LHS is sub-standard? Come on there has to be some student with the guts to say "Okay I'll do it, even if it's not really what I believe."

[ryan costa]

It is hard to imagine someone debating "against" the idea that Global warming is real in a dignified manner. It is like imaginging debating against women's suffrage or against interracial marriages. If that is part of the game then I guess it is ok. It can be entertaining.

I would rather see them debate on the premise that it global warming is real, and on what policies should be taken to deal with it. I could imagine taking a more harsh or pragmatic stance on this; since the processes excaberating global warming are past the tipping point we should focus on adapting to it. It would become a question of resource management: water, topsoil, energy, agriculture, distribution/markets.

Assuming there do become mass deaths in Asia and Africa I imagine the mega-cargo ships would begin carrying refugees instead of discount merchandise. I guess it would be ok to let the first batch in, but to then skuttle the ships so they can't bring any more refugees.

[Danielle Masters]

I assumed they were debating whether global warming was man-made or cyclical. Perhaps I assumed wrong.

[Jeff Endress]

Danielle

so are you saying the debate club at LHS is sub-standard?

All I know is what Dr. Chuck originally posted:

The students have debated, among themselves, many hot-button issues (i.e., gun control, capital punishment) but no one can bring themselves to take the "Global Warming is not a legitimate conern" side of things

Draw your own conclusion about the quality of the group. But whatever those conclusion may be, I question the appropriateness of extending them to the school as a whole.

Jeff

[Danielle Masters]

But whatever those conclusion may be, I question the appropriateness of extending them to the school as a whole.

I agree completely, the members of the club should be able to do this without bringing in others. I am merely stating that any member of a debate team/club should be able to take a stand on any position contrary to their own, if they cannot than I don't feel they are truly able to debate. I will leave it at that.

[Paul Schrimpf]

I am concerned about global warming, but I am equally concerned about how the country is following lemming-like in line without really questioning anything about it anymore. This debate class is a microcosm of society ... why should they accept that it's all true? Why should they accept doomsday scenarios? Is it possible that scientists are starting with the premise that global warming exists and simply looking to connect the dots? Is everyone out there doing research really starting with the hypothesis and trying to disprove it? Where is all the money researching global climate change coming from, those out to prove it's true or those out to get the truth? I don't know all the answers to these questions ... hey debate team, I assume all of you have these answers and are firm on your positions based on the facts at hand, right?

Defending global climate change theory is an uncontested layup in today's political climate. Challenging its assumptions is a halfcourt shot at the buzzer. But someone should do it.

[dl meckes]

I agree completely, the members of the club should be able to do this without bringing in others. I am merely stating that any member of a debate team/club should be able to take a stand on any position contrary to their own, if they cannot than I don't feel they are truly able to debate. I will leave it at that.

I agree as well. I don't care how indefensible a position may appear to be, part of debate means framing a cogent argument to support your premise, no matter how you or anyone else feels about it. Learning to debate is a game, but it is a good way to train your mind and develop speaking skills. It has some real-life importance.

For instance, do we want to live in a country where we cannot have vigorous representation in court? Defense lawyers are absolutely necessary, even if their client is Jeffrey Dahmer.

[Bret Callentine]

Okay, apparently it's a go for next Thursday at the Madison Branch of the Library. I believe Ken Warren has agreed to be the moderator.

Wish us luck.

And Jim, no heckling!!!!

[Jeff Endress]

I've got the eggs....who's bringing the tomatoes?

[Bret Callentine]

Are you making a salad?

[ryan costa]

"Global Warming is good, even though it isn't manmade. It is an act of God. If you want Cold weather go to Russia, where they are all Godless communists! God is helping us Northern States warm up, like the Sunbelt States. So we can have economic growth like the sunbelt states. Hot weather causes economic growth."

I'm satisfied with this. It wouldn't make sense to me, but I think it would make many people feel good. I can imagine it making sense to some people.

[Chuck S. Greanoff]

On behalf of the LHS Debate Club, I invite all interested parties to the Global Warming Debate--Thursday, May 24th at 6 pm at the Madison Branch of the Lakewood Public Library. The parameters of the debate are as follows: "Global Warming: A Man Made Problem - let's act now, or A Natural Phenomenon--let's not overreact."

[Dustin James]

On behalf of the LHS Debate Club, I invite all interested parties to the Global Warming Debate--Thursday, May 24th at 6 pm at the Madison Branch of the Lakewood Public Library. The parameters of the debate are as follows: "Global Warming: A Man Made Problem - let's act now, or A Natural Phenomenon--let's not overreact."

I love the polarity of debate, but sincerely wonder what if the answer happens to be that it's both --natural phenomenon and enhanced by man? Will such a debate expose this possibility and to Ryan's earlier post, what of the contingency planning if any, might be necessary?

What if it's also the Sun getting hotter (which is a factor not often cited). Our average global temperature has been greater than it is today, glaciers have come and gone, ocean levels have risen and fallen, and all of this happened before mankind was around.

We as humans like to think we know how to contain and control our destiny. We're primates aren't we? Rulers of the earth! I invite anyone to take a fresh look at the stars this evening. Go outside and really take a look. Each, one of billions of Suns that may or may not be heating up or cooling and dying.

Postulate to yourself how much control we really have. We forget about Pompeii or Mount St. Helen's, but these remind us as small examples, that the word global is a scale we are not able to control. Armageddon was a dramatic Hollywood movie about an asteroid the size of Texas hitting earth. If it were to happen, what WOULD we do?

The debate is well and good, yet it might not be one simple answer that man and fossil fuel consumption is the only factor. We might actually have to humbly bow to nature... (and start buying Sun block).

[Kenneth Warren]

Jim:

The debate may not be "well and good" in the eyes of "one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's three new special envoys on climate change."

Thus:

“Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, one of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's three new special envoys on climate change, also headed up the 1987 U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development where the concept of sustainable development was first floated.

"This discussion is behind us. It's over," she told reporters. "The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal -- it's completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues."

Source:
http://www.upi.com/International_Intell ... over/6480/

Dr. Chuck, are you sure we should be going forward when, as “Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, warns: "The diagnosis is clear, the science is unequivocal -- it's completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues."

Early in the thread there was question as to why students were reluctant to debate the side that disputes global warming. To read only slices of the discourse and rhetoric, which is easier for me to understand than the science, is to see how an organization such as the UN ramps up the moral panic meme to frame consciousness for the next generation of resource consumer.

While some of us might contest the agenda and see a conspiracy of controllers buttoning down freedoms and raising costs across the planet, children are, apparently, very scared. Here’s a sample from the Washington Post:

“…..For many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic bomb of today. Fears of an environmental crisis are defining their generation in ways that the Depression, World War II, Vietnam and the Cold War's lingering "War Games" etched souls in the 20th century.
Parents say they're searching for "productive" outlets for their 8-year-olds' obsessions with dying polar bears. Teachers say enrollment in high school and college environmental studies classes is doubling year after year. And psychologists say they're seeing an increasing number of young patients preoccupied by a climactic Armageddon….â€Â

[Chuck S. Greanoff]

It's difficult to structure a debate question that accounts for all the possible interacting variables and nuances that might emerge from the debate itself. The question, typically, tends to be set as a polarity--the complexities emerge from this process.

Surley, the kids could debate, in theory, the other side--they did want to. Something wrong with debating persons outside of the school--persons, we hoped to and did indeed attract, that had already researched the topic somewhat and wouldn't have to catch up with the debate club students?

There is great value in taking the other side, in learning the art of mercenary advocacy. These kids do this every week. Yet, for every lawyer (many, I would imagine, have clients they cannot serve)--how many citizens are there that advocate their side--at city council meetings, community groups, etc.? Debate craft is indeed an important skill, but does not supersede the goals of argument and advocacy itself--to create a better functioning society.

Here's a suggestion. Why not actually priviledge the topic as an important one that we could all learn something about--from a vigorous, informed debate?