Dear Alvia and Samuel, You're right, that was bad phrasing on my part.
In any case we would not take that university debating club approach of debating a 'statement' - I was just trying to get the idea across... Best, Gus On 30/04/2009 15:26, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
