The Observation Deck

The LHS debate Club, of which I am the advisor, is looking for someone(s) to debate the topic of global warming. 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. So, any skeptics out there want to serve the public good and take up the opposing view?

Dr. Chuck:

This sounds like a job for Bill Call.

See the Globaloney thread:

http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3152

Kenneth Warren

The "global warming is not a legitimate concern" stance can't really be taken scientifically.

Politically or socially it can be taken up with this stance: Mostly it will kill about 2 or 3 billion people from Asia, Africa, Mexico, Southeast Europe, and the more densely populated latin American countries. The U.S. and Canada aren't too filled up yet, and we've got a lot of water. So we can weather the post-peak oil slide and global warming trend better.

China had over 300 million people by 1795. By 1900 they had about 400 million. They had an agricultural surplus that supported many craftsmen, landlords/nobles, bureaucrats, tradesmen, merchants, entertainers, monks, etc. They had no net immigration during this time(and still don't). They had a net emmigration of laborers, merchants, and bureaucrats.

60 years ago Mexico had about 14 to 20 million people. today they have about 100 million.

So, when the post peak oil slide and global warming really picks up 2 to 3 billion people will probably die. A few ten million of them might make it to the United States or Canada. Siberia may thaw out sufficiently to host a few hundred million of them. weather patterns might flip around enough for Australia to host 2 or 3 hundred million.

Bill--- Time to step up to the plate. I'll buy you a cold one after.
Stan

Dr. Chuck - how about any one of the meteorologists in town? Starting with Dick Goddard. They have openly stated their professional skepticsm.

In the meantime, can we attend your club's debates?

Suzanne

Stan Austin wrote:Bill--- Time to step up to the plate. I'll buy you a cold one after.
Stan

It sounds like it could be fun.

I wonder what it says about the type of education that our children are receiving when no student can be found to take the position that the sun does indeed warm the Earth?

Bill:

With the LHS debate club in mind, I guess we are now talking about local warming of student powers of persuasion. It’s easy to be skeptical about mass media messaging and the effects on teacher and student consciousness. Let’s face the facts. Does anybody inside or outside the classroom or hauling cyber-ash on the LO ant-farm really grasp the matter through the scientific method?

It’s all spin zone, I suspect, raising the pole of paranoia among those who can't hack the science but don't trust the Bilderberger powers that be.

Now, with Rupert Murdoch launching a media-wide plan to address climate change, one has to wonder, as Kurt Nimmo does, about the effects on popular consciousness and the message playbook for authoritarian control crafted in his alliance with Hillary.

Thus Nimmo:

“In other words, soon enough, the neocons, including Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, will be preaching a green message, that is to say the now fashionable epistle of sacrifice and ultimately surrender to authoritarian control. Instead of scary Muslims crouched in the shadows clutching radiological devices, we will be presented with the visage of melting polar icecaps, flooded coastal cities, aberrant weather patterns, crop failures, gloom, doom and destruction. In order to fight against this horrific stuff, all indubitably the direct result of you driving a car and selfishly flicking on the air conditioner, not only will sacrifice be required, but a scientific police state will need be implemented to enforce sacrifice, lest we obtusely kill off not only the polar bear but future generations.â€Â￾

“The challenge is to revolutionize the [climate change] message,â€Â￾ Murdoch told News Corp. employees. “He emphasized the need to ‘make it dramatic, make it vivid, even sometimes make it fun. We want to inspire people to change their behavior.’â€Â￾ In other words, the same old systematic manipulation of public opinion will be employed, especially now that Osama and his terrorist cave dwellers have outlived their usefulness, as Osama does not possess the staying power of coastal flooding, starvation, and mass climate-induced die-off not only of Bambi, but humanity writ large. No doubt the message will be dramatic and vivid, although it remains to be seen how crowding into an Agenda 21 “habitat,â€Â￾ i.e., green ghetto, will be funâ€â€￾well, it may be fun for the psychopathic and sadistic control freaks in charge, but not the rest of us……â€Â￾

For more: http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=863

Kenneth Warren

Bill - Chuck approached me last night with this. His students need to pose the specific question and present the format, but at least in principal, I've accepted the challenge.

That said, are you still interested? If they get to do this as a team, then I'm definitely looking for anyone who would like to help.

Chuck says that I won't be allowed to threaten physical violence as part of my formal debate strategy, so I'll need to come up with another plan.

anyone else interested?

Bret Callentine wrote:Chuck says that I won't be allowed to threaten physical violence as part of my formal debate strategy, so I'll need to come up with another plan.

Yesterday I emailed my acceptance of the offer but I haven't received an answer. I would be happy to work with you on this.

The Global Warming enthusiasm is a belated, half-assed, and misdirected attempt to get people thinking about the real problem--peak oil. The peak oil problem is so severe people are pretty much afraid to think about it, and what it means. Here is what it means: All the sprawl we've been building in the last 50 years or so is wrong. Pretty much everything we've built in the sunbelt in the last 70 years is wrong. Unrestricted free trade is wrong. the three thousand mile caesar salad is wrong. Going on expeditionary oil wars and then asking for tax cuts is wrong. Soccer Moms are wrong. SUVs are wrong. Interstate 90 is wrong.

No student will engage the debate? Unbelievable. This, with the political sea change that's occurred in society in general that global warming is a fait accompli, makes engaging a debate all the more exciting! There's no shortage of red meat out there to get people thinking about their assumptions. Good luck Bill! Watch for cream pies!

I wonder whether students somehow feel that they will be singled out by taking the contrary side of an issue that has been "decided" by general acceptance.

Where are the contrarians? The future lawyers? The future scientists? No future politicians?

It seems to me that it is fundamentally important to be able to thoroughly examine an issue.

I feel disappointed that Dr. Greanoff's students are discomfitted by arguing both sides of an issue. How do we encourage independent thinking? How do we encourage questioning those things that we think we know?

Why does a debate group decline to debate? (That's not a rhetorical question.)

It could be the debate club is smart enough to believe global warming and the human contribution to global warming is real.

In todays world people are less willing to play the devil's advocate. I mean, it is very unusual for debators to take the stance that Slavery was ok for the South, or even dress it up as a "states rights" issue: they simply know it was wrong and cannot commit themselves to such an intellectual lie.

But these are high school kids on a debate team. Maybe they aren't very good at science, so can't really argue intelligibly from either standpoint. But since most of the available information supports global warming they stick to that and commit some of those factoids to memory.

Thankfully, Mr. Costa is a masterful and ingenious devil's advocate.

Examining a contrary point of view reflects ignorance as well as a strong personal attachment to the point of view that one is debating.