English as a Global Language
Discussion Summer 2009
IQ2 Debate: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
Before I sat down to listen to the debate, “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, I was already interested in the idea of global warming. While many people have a hard time worrying about what might happen 100 years from now, I don’t. I considered what I already knew about global warming. I was somewhat familiar with the topics of: reducing greenhouse gases, moving the world away from fossil fuels, providing more breathable air, enhancing the quality of life, and healthy ecosystems. What I didn’t know was how easily passionate debaters could change the minds of their audience. Before the debate began, 30% of the audience was for the motion that global warming is not a crisis, after the debate that rose to 46%. While those against the motion, went from 57% before the debate, down to 42% after the debate. So, those in favor of the motion won the debate. In this paper, I will attempt to analyze the debate.
This debate was meant to inform the audience about global warming, convince the audience that it is or is not in the crisis stage, and propose to the audience what needs to be done about it. The debaters gave information about global warming and the environment. They tried to convince the audience that it is or is not a crisis. Some presented proposals to the audience about what needs to happen to ensure it doesn’t become a bigger crisis. Debaters for the proposal were Richard S. Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Philip Stott. Debaters against the proposal were Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C.J. Somerville.
The first debater, Richard S. Lindzen, Sloan Professor at MIT, who was for the proposal that global warming is not a crisis stated several facts about temperature, tectonics, and the future. He didn’t feel that there was a need to reduce greenhouse emissions. He informed the audience about such things as models of the atmosphere in the ocean and how they really can’t replicate the
IQ2 Debate: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
Before I sat down to listen to the debate, “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, I was already interested in the idea of global warming. While many people have a hard time worrying about what might happen 100 years from now, I don’t. I considered what I already knew about global warming. I was somewhat familiar with the topics of: reducing greenhouse gases, moving the world away from fossil fuels, providing more breathable air, enhancing the quality of life, and healthy ecosystems. What I didn’t know was how easily passionate debaters could change the minds of their audience. Before the debate began, 30% of the audience was for the motion that global warming is not a crisis, after the debate that rose to 46%. While those against the motion, went from 57% before the debate, down to 42% after the debate. So, those in favor of the motion won the debate. In this paper, I will attempt to analyze the debate.
This debate was meant to inform the audience about global warming, convince the audience that it is or is not in the crisis stage, and propose to the audience what needs to be done about it. The debaters gave information about global warming and the environment. They tried to convince the audience that it is or is not a crisis. Some presented proposals to the audience about what needs to happen to ensure it doesn’t become a bigger crisis. Debaters for the proposal were Richard S. Lindzen, Michael Crichton, and Philip Stott. Debaters against the proposal were Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C.J. Somerville.
The first debater, Richard S. Lindzen, Sloan Professor at MIT, who was for the proposal that global warming is not a crisis stated several facts about temperature, tectonics, and the future. He didn’t feel that there was a need to reduce greenhouse emissions. He informed the audience about such things as models of the atmosphere in the ocean and how they really can’t replicate the