Hey NYers: Debate the Severity of Global Warming on April 15

The next Soho Forum is going to get hot.

Soho Forum

On Monday, April 15, the next Reason-sponsored Soho Forum, a monthly debate series, will engage the proposition, "There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet."

Craig Idso, the founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, will take the affirmative position and Jeffrey Bennett, an astrophysicist and former visiting scholar at NASA, will argue the negative. The Soho Forum is an Oxford-style debate, meaning the audience is polled before and after the debate and the winner is the person who moves the most people to his side. Tickets must be purchased in advance and admission includes access to a cash bar and free buffet of light fare.

Use the discount code REASON and get 25 percent off.

Details:

Monday, April 15, 2019

Craig Idso vs. Jeffrey Bennett

Resolution: There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet.

Cash bar opens at 5:45pm
Event starts at 6:30pm
Subculture Theater
45 Bleecker St
NY, 10012

Seating must be reserved in advance.

Use REASON code to get 25 percent off!

Moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

All Soho Forums are released as Reason videos and podcasts. Go here for a full archive.

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

April? Bennett has already lost. Always wait until the middle of summer to argue for Global Warming.

[Idle Hands]

lol. It's still snowing in some places.

[Juice]

It snowed here (DC) in October and it was really fucking cold then too. That shit stuck for a while. Then it was cold as fuck in November. January was stupid fucking cold here and it rarely let up in that whole time. There were flurries yesterday morning about 10 miles north of here. The low tonight will be about 30. That's some fucking bullshit. Makes me want to move to Florida.

[Idle Hands]

I'm surprised we didn't have way more snow than we did given how much rain we've had this past year.

[BearOdinson]

There is little or no rigorous evidence that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming and threatening life on the planet.

That is a lot of stuff packed into one resolution.
1. Are CO2 levels rising?
2. Are global temperatures rising in a statistically significant manner?
3. Are these changes a trend that has been measured long enough to be significant?
4. Are global temperatures directly and primarily linked to CO2 levels?
5. Are manmade emissions the primary cause of rising CO2 levels?
6. Will these changes lead to catastrophic effects?

If the answer to any one of these questions is NO, then the hypothesis fails. So one could be in the Affirmative even if they accept 1-5, if they believe the answer to 6 is NO.

One can be affirmative and still believe that CO2 levels are going to keep rising, they are primarily result of manmade emissions, and this will lead to a global temperature increase. Since there

[Jerryskids]

You missed the most significant qualifier there - the idea that it's threatening life rather than merely human life on the planet makes this a stacked proposition. You're essentially talking about human beings creating a runaway greenhouse effect that even after conditions become hostile enough that human life is exterminated conditions cannot be stabilized or improved to the point where bacterial, microbial, anaerobic life will be sustained, that the planet will be rendered a sterile hot rock floating in space. (Or is global warming going to render Earth a frozen sterile rock? I can never remember if we're going to be boiled alive or flash frozen.)

[BearOdinson]

You are correct sir. I did miss that little qualifier. So one can be for the Affirmative, and still believe that anthropogenic global warming is the worst calamity ever in the last billion years.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no

[BearOdinson]

For me (erring on the side of caution):
Yes, probably, maybe, don't know, yes, NO.

[Juice]

1. Yes.
2. Depends on the time frame chosen.
3. No.
4. No.
5. Most likely.
6. Extremely unlikely.

[awildseaking]

I'm glad you got actual scientists, albeit a physicist is way more technically qualified than a farmer and geographer, but I can't complain.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Is this likely to draw a substantial crowd, in and outside the venue? If so does anyone actually believe they will hear any dialogue about this over the inevitable yelling and screaming?

[Fats of Fury]

5000 years ago the Sahara was a vast savanna grassland. Along comes the Egyptians with their gas guzzling pyramid building and voila,our just deserts. Humans cause climate change. Now where do I apply for my grant?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""Now where do I apply for my grant?"'

Needs more virtue signaling.

[drisco304]

Sorry. That project has already been funded.

[SIV]

Isn't this a bit like debating whether the Earth was created before 4004 B.C. or if the Nazis killed 6 million Jews?

[Bender B. Rodriguez]

Maybe I should fly in to NYC for this in my private jet.

[Tom Bombadil]

I was told several years ago the debate was over. What's going on here? Is Reason encouraging hate speech?

[Hendricks]

I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

[Chris Hudson]

I long for a day when libertarians will devote less time to debating climate change is start debating the best solutions to mitigate the risks.

[drisco304]

I'm against it. Ever since they first commenced it I've been against it.

[renewableguy]

https://bit.ly/2Z5a9iL

Libertarians therefore believe that the government is the major cause of global warming, and they believe they can change the narrative in the following ways.

This government is the problem just isn't correct. Everyone has to do their part equally. Regulations make the world a fair place to live in. WIthout regulations, corporations end up with a licence to steal. Libertarianism is just individual liberty taken to far out of balance.

[thorsmjollnir]

It’s now May. Where’s the video/podcast to this debate?