Maybe they found Lomborg compelling (although I think Elizabeth and George did a good job of completely disassembling not just his arguments, but him). Maybe they were buying into what he was selling.

Or maybe they were just buying tickets to the debate (or having those tickets bought for them), providing a false response to whether they agreed with the Resolution in order to pump up the numbers on the PRO side, only to “change their minds” at the end of the debate, handing the CONS a win.

I wasn’t there, so I don’t know if this happened. The Munk Debates website has posted the outcome yet (although it was announced last night in the lobby, I understand: no webcast of that, which was disappointing). So, if the numbers went down from 61% agreement, I will have to wonder outloud a little more about the numbers, given what I observed of the debate on the webcast. It certainly is within the realm of possibility that those with other vested interests might do something a little underhanded to stimey action on climate change, don’t you think?

A small group gathered in Sudbury (about 15 people) to watch on short notice, not all of us GPC people either. Went out for drinks afterwards and debated more amongst ourselves!

So…I sincerely hope this webcast thing works!

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/bad-canada.html

We’ll be hosting a live-viewing (via webcast) here in Sudbury this evening, which is intended to be a non-partisan affair (because this issue is too damn important to leave to partisan politics). At least one member of the NDP has indicated that he’ll be there.

I’m still bringing my radio as back-up (I understand that CBC radio is broadcasting the debate live — someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

Webcasts are great things, when they work, which in my experience has been about only half the time.

It should be an interesting debate, because Lomborg in particular is no slouch, and presents what many might think of as being a compelling alternative. He’ll say that for the money we’re investing in fighting climate change, we could end childhood poverty, bring food and water to everyone in the world…but what he doesn’t talk about is how this will be of benefit when people are forced from their homes as climate refugees.

Interestingly, I believe that Lomborg’s arguments only make sense if you assume that our economy is going to stay very much the same as it is today. I, for one, do not believe that it will, as the price of oil is sure to increase now that we have passed peak production, and with China and India still gearing up, demand is only going to rise in the short term. Without another viable fuel option, oil will remain king for a while yet. Expect a very unstable global economy to be the result.