Why the hell would anyone agree to a debate based on such a strawman argument? Almost no one involved in geoengineering research or discussion would agree with your premise. We all agree that reducing emissions must proceeed at an expedited, but realistic pace. Geoengineering is simply to buy time and prevent accumlating irreversible damage along the way. A better debate topic would be whether or not geoengineering should be done at all, addressing the major arguments for and against that we here are all too familiar with, but that the public or whatever your audience consists of is not.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gus Lamb" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:03 AM Subject: [geo] Televised debate > > Dear all, > > We at One Planet Pictures are interested in setting up a televised debate > on > geoengineering. Something on the lines of: "This house believes we should > give up trying to reduce emissions and concentrate instead on finding a > technofix". > > Can anyone suggest any companies or institutions that might be interested > in > sponsoring such a debate? > > Many thanks > > Gus > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
