CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:128
Arguments:67
Total Votes:142
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Can we finally move past the Climate Change denial? (67)

Debate Creator

andsoccer16(1780) pic



Can we finally move past the Climate Change denial?

Now that Nasa has concluded that this year's global temperatures have been the hottest in recorded history in spite of a solar irradiance minimum, and no El Niño activity can we please just stop denying the reality of anthropogenic climate change and actually begin to take steps to reduce our impact on the environment?

Add New Argument

Some deny Climate Change, but most scientists and data suggest otherwise.

Therefore, the presence of climate change is just as important as the solutions.

It is better to be safe than sorry regarding climate change because any sudden changes of temperature would be detrimental to human existence.

However, the remedies proposed by Al Gore are immensely inaccurate because the tactics are wildly inefficient, expensive and ineffective.

Sure, it will create jobs, but global warming will remain.

WHY?

Three Reasons

Too Little, Too Late, & Too Optimistic

Too Little means the typical conservation effort simply won't make much a difference. Wind power and most other alternative energy things are cute, but they don't scale to a sufficient degree. Wind farms are a government subsidy scam. Also, coal is cheap and by trying to generate electricity without would be economic suicide, particularly for developing countries.

How it fair to expect developing countries to scrap coal and fossil fuels for alternative energy where America built this country on cheap energy?

Too Late is the half life of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it is roughly one hundred years, and some of it remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

Even if humanity stopped burning all fossil fuels, the existing carbon dioxide would remain in the atmosphere. Thus, climate changes would likely still shift.

Too Optimistic means a lot is said but doesn't mean anything. Under the current technology, the solar cells are designed to absorb light from the sun, but only 12 percent gets turned into electricity, and the rest is turned into heat.

So, with all the new manufacturing plants and installed cells, the world would be free of carbon emissions, but the global warming will remain and probably worsen.

However, the solution is geoengineering, yet the pursuit clean energy shouldn't be ignored because fossil fuels will be exhausted.

Side: Geoengineering
5 points

+1

Side: Geoengineering
4 points

Therefore, the presence of climate change is just as important as the solutions.

I agree, but its presence has been well established at this point by the climate scientists who study atmospheric phenomenon.

However, the remedies proposed by Al Gore are immensely inaccurate because the tactics are wildly inefficient, expensive and ineffective.

In what way? As far as I know Al Gore is no scientist but I think what he is proposing is a decrease in unnecessary electricity use in homes through increased efficiency (including energy efficient bulbs, and a lowering of the thermostat when you aren't at home), increased fuel economy in cars and an increased reliance on renewable energy all of which would go a long ways towards cutting greenhouse gasses.

Too Little means the typical conservation effort simply won't make much a difference. Wind power and most other alternative energy things are cute, but they don't scale to a sufficient degree.

I would strongly disagree with this statement. Wind energy can be used as a legitimate source, and actually works better the higher it is scaled. Why? Because when you connect different areas that are far apart the wind is blowing at different times, meaning that you have a sustained power effort. As many European nations (such as Germany) have learned wind power can be a great addition to current power grids. At the moment 6.5% of Germany's electricity needs are met by wind and they are planning to build more. In certain regions where wind is used, the electricity companies actually produced too much power at time and paid its clients to use more electricity. So far from being cute, wind energy could be a crucial step for the U.S. and other nations in moving away from coal. If you want to learn more about wind check out the videos here and here.

Wind farms are a government subsidy scam.

That's complete BS. I know you hate government interference in the market, but in this case its necessary to get renewable energy that will help us create jobs and become more energy independent. Not everything the government does is bad, and certain global problems require government action.

Also, coal is cheap and by trying to generate electricity without would be economic suicide, particularly for developing countries.

While coal may be cheap, it is also terrible both for the environment, the health of those who live around the plants, and the minors who get the coal. In the long term coal will cost us more than it saves us now.

Needless to say, coal is bad for the environment, and this is true in more ways than one.

Mining: Mining for coal releases other greenhouse gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide. In addition the waste products of coal mining are dangerous contaminates that include radioactive and heavy metals in addition to other toxins. In addition, strip mining can have tremendous environmental impacts on the local ecosystem. Mining can also cause acidification of water sources by an effect known as acid mine drainage. And these aren't even all the negative effects!

Burning: As far as the actual burning of coal on our environment, CO2 is obviously what we are most concerned about when it comes to climate change, but there are other pollutants that can have an adverse affect on nature, and add to problems like acid rain. In addition, other dangerous elements (such as mercury) are often released with coal burning that can be dangerous to wildlife and humans alike.

Those are just environmental impacts. What we should also be concerned about is human health. Obviously you have heard in the news mining accidents, but were you aware that mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world?

In addition to the mining thousands of people every year either die or have their lives dramatically shortened because of coal plants. In addition to this there are numerous other health effects associated with coal plants.

In this way, coal is only cheaper if we ignore all the hidden environmental and health costs. Medical bills and loss of human life alone are reason enough to turn to alternatives, but when coupled with the part that coal is playing in the destruction of our environment and its impact on global warming, I'd say this is a no-brainer.

How it fair to expect developing countries to scrap coal and fossil fuels for alternative energy where America built this country on cheap energy?

Easy: we invest in creating new technologies that make alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal cheaper. We can also use trade incentives to encourage developing nations to adopt these alternatives as opposed to fossil fuels.

Too Late is the half life of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it is roughly one hundred years, and some of it remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

I think you may be a little confused on the science. I would love to see your sources for this. Carbon dioxide is naturally taken out of the atmosphere by plants. The issue is that we are putting too much of it in and the plants can't get rid of it fast enough. If we stopped deforestation, and decreased our burning of fossil fuels we could definitely get greenhouse gasses back to acceptable levels within the century.

In addition, according to a peer reviewed, scientific study conducted by Pushker Kharecha and James E. Hansen we should aim to phase out fossil fuel emissions by about 2050. In other words we do have time to act, especially if we start now.

Too Optimistic means a lot is said but doesn't mean anything. Under the current technology, the solar cells are designed to absorb light from the sun, but only 12 percent gets turned into electricity, and the rest is turned into heat.

When it comes to solar cells all that matters is cost efficiency, since sunlight is free. Currently commercially sold crystalline silicone solar cells have an efficiency of 18%, and in upcoming years this is expected to increase. These type of solar cells are usable because they pay for themselves with the electricity they produce in under 5 years time. This means they are cost effective, and like I said before, this is the only thing that matters.

So, with all the new manufacturing plants and installed cells, the world would be free of carbon emissions, but the global warming will remain and probably worsen.

Once again, you seem to not grasp the fact that plants can naturally take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and we can help by stopping deforestation. The first step though would be to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible. Then we can worry about mitigating the damage we have already done.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

Al Gore is no scientist...

Really, Al Gore is the poster child for unnecessary electricity use. In 2006, Al Gore used 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity totaling to $30,000 in utility bills, which is twenty times more than the average home. Gore What a hypocrisy?

Wind Power is all about efficiency and electricity production in relation to costs. The fact remains that wind power is expansive. The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity in order to connect them. How many fields are going to be needed to meet the current demand of energy with kilowatt hogs such as Al Gore? What is the current total use of wind production in America? It is less than 1%. Power

NOT A SUBSIDY SCAM!!! Really

"During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy. Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total."

$64 billion in free money for only 1%. What a deal? Scam

While coal may be cheap, it is also terrible both for the environment, the health of those who live around the plants, and the minors who get the coal. In the long term coal will cost us more than it saves us now. Needless to say, coal is bad for the environment, and this is true in more ways than one.

Cry me a river, treehugger. Those are all externalities. Society is filled with negative externalities, so what is one more?

Cows release methane. Cow emissions are more damaging than cars.

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain." Cows Should we stop eating protein?

This doesn't include the manure seepage in water and food.

Obviously you have heard in the news mining accidents, but were you aware that mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world?

We live in a free society, so nobody in America was forced into that occupation, yet somebody has to do it, and they volunteering choose that profession. It is called labor hazard.

Lastly, all of the poor countries desperately trying to create wealth with cheap energy, yet America was built on cheap energy, but we tell them, no sorry environment is more important than your prosperity. That is a weak justification. Wow, another hypocrisy?

we invest in creating new technologies that make alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal cheaper. We can also use trade incentives to encourage developing nations to adopt these alternatives as opposed to fossil fuels.

Wow, now foreign subsidies. Most developing countries are hardly in the position to trade without freebies. See how the bottom 10 TDI ranking countries are all African developing countries Even most of the middle 20 are developing nations. It is great how countries with free capitalist trade polices are prosperous.

Carbon dioxide is naturally taken out of the atmosphere by plants.

GEE, thanks for the high school science!

How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere?

Well, we are both right.

While some carbon leaves the fast cycle quickly, a significant portion stays there for hundreds or thousands of years. Athomsphere

Again, how many fields are going to be sacrificed at a "18%" efficiency rate accounting for only .1% of all production. Solar

You seem to not grasp the fact that plants can naturally take CO2 out of the atmosphere, and we can help by stopping deforestation.

Please refer to above.

Side: Renewable Energy
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

Person 1: We need to do something about global warming.

Person 2: Global warming is a myth.

...

Person 1: Things are getting bad! We really need to do something about climate change!

Person 2: There's nothing to worry about.

...

Person 1: Fuck! We're facing imminent catastrophe!

Person 2: Eh, it's too late to do anything about it.

What a fucking joke.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

I hope that you are not referring to me as a joke.-----------------

Side: Renewable Energy
Troy8(2431) Disputed
0 points

I like person 2 more because he doesn't swear........... ;)

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

Only if whenever we see a cooler year we can burn more stuff.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

Han't anyone ever thought that maybe we're staving off the next ice age? I think we can survive a little heat better than subzero temperatures.

Side: What do I care
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

Han't anyone ever thought that maybe we're staving off the next ice age? I think we can survive a little heat better than subzero temperatures.

Ecosystems are frail things. A few degrees here or there, and days or months of extended weather has a rippling effect on life which depends on the climate. The fear is that so much change will cause mass extinctions and basically kill us because we depend on those lesser organisms.

Side: What do I care
1 point

That's what I love about you guys.

Let me first say that I've always accepted that climate change has been happening. The science is mostly behind it. I've always said that as a skeptic, I've researched into it being a natural process.

But I'll humor you.

Why is this a discussion on what WE must do? First, you're saying "now that NASA confirms that climate change is happening, what must WE do to stop it?"

Well, I could go with PrayerFails and talk a bunch of stuff that Libertarians tend to talk about when it comes to dealing with climate change (although, others remain skeptics like many of the Cato Institute), or, I could propose what I've always proposed as our best chance for alternative energy:

Nuclear Power. It's safe, clean and efficient. Our obsolete nuclear power plants that are up and running are excellent, and while there are so many restrictions that... "your people" tend to put against nuclear power, building new nuclear reactors would be even MORE efficient and safe than the ones we have now. Now, I admit I may be stereotyping you into a group, andsoccer, so I will accept it if you say that you are for more use of nuclear power.

People can be surprising at times.

Wind Power still requires other forms of energy just to keep it working. Most likely fossil fuels. That's what we're trying to get rid of, so that would have to be knocked off. This would leave advocates of Wind Power at a tough decision since now their wind power is so limited. It's unreliable and obsolete.

Solar power sounds nice, but it's too expensive and very unrealistic. A shit load of solar panels are required to power a home. That's a shit load that most human beings could never afford.

Hydroelectric I advocate for cars, once they make good cars for it that I can afford. But that's not of the now. Electric cars, in general, tend to have that same problem. I do want an electric car when it eventually becomes affordable and with a great amount of horse power (think Dodge Challenger or Charger).

Now, the best renewable energy that we can and SHOULD use is biomass. There's plenty of it and we have a shit load of it on standby (landfills and the garbage in your homes). Ethanol is this country's top product (corn, anyone?) and if we can convert it efficiently into GOOD fuel (Dodge Charger power) we're talking about millions of dollars saved by US citizens. I am a strong advocate for Biomass energy when it comes to replacing fossil fuels used in cars and other engine based systems (motors and shit, anything that needs gas, basically), but when it comes to lighting a city block we need to think big picture. That is Nuclear Power. It is truly the best way to solve our energy crisis.

I am very much against fossil fuels, believe it or not. While I remain skeptical about whether human beings are the MOST INFLUENTIAL contributors to climate change or not, I still believe that fossil fuels are just too unnecessary for that to be such a big factor. Make the fanatics happy and replace fossil fuels. But it also gives the Middle East much power over the money we are willing to pay, and considering that we're currently fighting a lot of those guys, it's not good to be pumping more and more dollars into THEIR countries. Then there's the issues with drilling off shores, while it is usually efficient, every once in a while you get some BP shit that really gets the environmentalist in an uproar about how Capitalism is bad and morons trying to somehow blame the government for not being there. Dumb shit like that.

With biomass and nuclear power as a main replacement for fossil fuels, we won't have to worry as much about money, climate change, or our very own enemies. Sure, people will always find a way to bitch. Even right now we see people complaining about the dangers of Nuclear Power (even though all evidence suggests for Nuclear Power to be our sanctuary). We have extremely efficient means of disposing used nuclear rods. We have extremely safe ways of running a power plant; even safe enough to protect ourselves from terrorists (because yes, they use terrorism as an excuse to not do something... I guess the anti-airport and anti-above ground schools lobbies can borrow from the anti-nuclear power playbook). And we save money. It even stays within our economy at the most part and doesn't go into the hands of those damned terrorist sympathizers.

So, while 97% of carbon emissions are natural, I really don't mind eliminating some of that 3% in order to help in the cause of "stopping climate change". It sounds so cute, like when I used to throw rocks into the ocean in hope of one day being able to fill it up.

Side: Diversify
3 points

When it comes to science, I'm sort of a geek, and this is one issue that I've been particularly interested in. I'm glad that you've studied the subject, but I think that your research may not have been the greatest if you think that humans only account for 3% of CO2 emissions. One only has to look at the past 100 years of CO2 data to see that we've seen a significant increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even just 50 years ago the concentration of CO2 was only around 315 ppm, and now it's over 370 and still is showing an upward trend. This is no small increase.

Now, you may say that this increase isn't from us, that it could be natural. Natural from where? Some climate deniers have pointed to volcanos as a possible source. They spew a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, and historically have played a large role in changing earth's climate (like helping bring us out of ice ages) so perhaps what humans are doing has no effect. Turns out this is completely untrue. In fact:

Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010). Source

So what else might it be? If you have any other possible sources of the CO2, then I (and I'm sure thousands of atmospheric scientists) would love to hear them. Keep in mind though that not all CO2 is the same, and the CO2 emitted by humans from fossil fuels absorbs a distinct wavelength in the infrared spectrum, and the "new" CO2 in the atmosphere has this exact same feature (basically what I'm saying is we've proven that humans are producing the CO2 and it would probably be wise of you just to accept that fact and move on to the next logical objection so I can deal with that).

Or if you'd rather continue to not let facts get in the way of your argument, keep saying that 97% of CO2 is natural, and that the people who understand the science are fanatics. I don't mind being called that...he's a great mascot.

Thank you for not immediately pidgin holing me, because you'll be happy to hear that I don't think nuclear has no place in our future energy needs. It is a relatively safe and reliable fuel option, and when compared to coal it is extremely clean. What this doesn't mean however, is that there aren't still negatives to nuclear power.

Nuclear power still requires strip mining, or other more dangerous forms of mining. Strip mining destroys ecosystems and mining in general releases toxic chemicals into the environment and often into water supplies. Like I said earlier though, it's better than coal because you can get a lot more power from the same amount uranium (or plutonium).

As a side note, there is actually an alternative to mining for more of the elements needed to power nuclear plants, and it would kill two birds with one stone. Ever since Reagan we have been trying to decrease our nuclear stock pile to about a third, and one good way to do this would be to use nuclear power to partially disarm...it's a win win, because we get energy without having to mine, and we send an important message to the world.

Anyway, back to why nuclear power isn't as great as you make it out to be. No matter how you get the elements to power the plants, you will always have waste left over. Now, it's not a lot of waste, because the process is very efficient, however any waste generated will last for billions of years, so it adds up. We do currently have a facility in place to store waste that they claim would keep it safe for some millions of years (I think), however, it is now closed down because of a legal battle.

Uranium and plutonium are also non renewable fuel sources, meaning that, just like we are eventually going to run out of fossil fuels/they are going to become extremely expensive/we will have to trade with other countries that we might not like to get them, the same will be true eventually with these other elements. So thinking long-term, we are eventually going to have to move to renewables since the sun, wind and heat from our earth aren't going anywhere any time soon.

In addition, nuclear power is not very economical and would continue to require government subsidies. Now I'm all in favor of government subsidies if it means that we can get away from coal, however, I think that this money would be better spent on renewables (more on that in a minute).

My only final issue with why nuclear can't be our silver bullet to replace coal and stop climate change is implementation time. Nuclear power plants can take anywhere from 12-20 years to build. This means that during the building time climate change would continue to get worse, and most scientists agree that we need to act sooner in order to curb temperature increase and stop feedback effects from making the problem unstoppable.

Now, onto renewables.

You very very quickly wrote off wind power in your argument. You claimed that it required alternatives to run, and that it was unreliable. Now I know why you want to believe this: because that would mean all the hippies are wrong and being unrealistic as usual. Unlike communism, the hippies actually right idea on this one though.

Yes, wind energy is most effective when it is coupled with other sources of power, but even if these sources were coal it would still mean we were using less coal. Anyways no one ever said that wind should be our only option, or that our country even needed one single option to replace coal. Diversifying our energy system would actually be a very good thing.

You say that wind is unreliable, and whenever anyone says this I know that they don't actually know much about wind. When a coal plant, or a nuclear plant experiences a blackout (as was the case in the New York blackout) electricity shuts down immediately and without warning. This tends to be a pretty shitty event and can cost billions of dollars. Wind on the other hand dies down very slowly, and predictably. In fact, we have mapped wind-flow over the entire surface of the earth, and it is easy to predict when the wind will be blowing and when it won't. In fact, you could even say that it can be predicted reliably. Now I'm guessing that what you were mostly referring to is the fact that wind doesn't blow 24/7. There are a number of ways to get around this fact. 1st you can store the extra energy. One method includes having a reservoir that you pump water up into during times of surplus electricity, so that during times when wind isn't blowing the stored water will run turbines, generating power. This system is already in place in countries where people use wind power. Another method pumps compressed air into large vaults during times of excess...this too has been tried in places that use intermittent power supplies such as wind and solar.

The other solution is to connect wind grids over large areas. In other words, the wind is always blowing somewhere, so if you have wind power over a large enough area, part of the grid will always be getting power. This would work especially well on the east coast where storms move northwards, and thus would allow power to be essentially continuos (it's also good because wind is the only power source that can be put offshore).

Wind has other advantages too, namely that it is on par with nuclear and coal as far as cost, meaning that it won't require a lot of huge tax breaks and subsidies to be implemented. If your actually interested in the subject of wind and want to learn why its not such a ridiculous solution watch the videos here and here.

When it comes to solar, we have similar issues to wind in that the sun isn't always shining, but when you combine the two you get a pretty steady power source. Another good thing is that electricity demand is highest in the daytime.

Now lets talk about cost. You seem convinced that solar is only really a good novelty source of electricity for environmentalists with money to burn. Would you be surprised to find out that by 2015 we should have solar power that is cheeper than coal, and that in sunny areas of the country where electricity costs are high (California and Hawaii) we already have that? That's without any tax breaks at all. You may be right that personal solar panels for homes in most parts of the country are still not economically viable without subsidizing, but I think I'd rather subsidize solar than nuclear.

What's even better is that costs are continuing to go down, and before the end of the decade solar technology will almost certainly be one of the cheapest methods of energy production.

Geothermal is the final renewable I will mention. Since the earth's temperature doesn't vary a lot, geothermal would not be intermittent, and therefore in areas where it can be used (a.k.a. places near tectonic plates) it can be a good alternative to incorporate into grids of wind and solar in addition to other existing power sources.

You also mention biomass and ethanol as the way to power cars, but that has its own issues, namely that it requires a shit ton of land to grow the crops when it comes to ethanol, and biomass technology isn't anywhere near being able to create fuel from waste products. There's also the issue with causing food prices to go up, and the fact that it will cost us even more money since corn is way over-subsidized already.

The good news is that we aren't that far off good electric cars, and in fact this year Nissan is releasing an electric car, so hopefully the idea will catch on with other companies. What's good about electric cars is that it allows us to solve the climate change issue in one move by merely changing the source of our electricity to something cleaner.

So in short: Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time. Wind, solar and geothermal can combine to make a very good and diversified power supply, and electric cars are already on their way. Oh, and also CO2 emissions are mostly generated by humans.

Supporting Evidence: TED Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy? (www.ted.com)
Side: Renewable Energy
ThePyg(6756) Disputed
2 points

I liked most of what you had to say when explaining renewable energies, and I know I sounded pretty harshly against them. I'll try not to. I usually mention how I am for diversifying our energy sources since that would be the most effective. I just focused more on this debate as sounding like an asshole that I forgot that these are serious issues here.

Yes, I am for diversified energy. Now, I don't quite trust what you said about nuclear being cheaper than solar power, or being that long, but instead of getting into an endless debate on source vs. source, I'll agree that, at least, we can't depend solely on nuclear energy to get us out of the energy crisis.

biomass, on the other hand, was never something i studied up on too much. I'll admit, it just sounded good when the idea was explained to me. Although, I do know that landfills are used to power homes already, so it can't be too bad of an energy sources to use. It may not be, as you pointed out, a cure all, though.

Same shit with ethanol. We are a huge producer of corn, and corn is used in practically everything now a days. It would just make sense to use it in fuel. Although, I will say that ethanol alone isn't that effective. It needs to be paired with something in order to really be efficient for fuel.

Nuclear power, though, I have studied a lot (negatives vs. positives) and I trust the proponents more... but for the sake of compromise, I will merely say that you're right on it not being our ONLY source of energy independence.

I am against fossil fuels and have been for a long time. It started with the whole global warming thing (yes, I used to truly believe that humans were a major contributor to it) but then I became skeptical and now it just comes mainly from the costs and dependence on the Middle East (which bugs me now more than ever).

While I've always been interested in environmentalism in general, I may not be as into it as you are (since there are aspects of me that don't care enough). I like science, but the part that I'm a geek on is Evolutionary Psychology, Sexology, and shit like that.

Sure, I'm still not as worried about the end of the world as the environmentalists are, but I still support alternative energy.

Side: Diversify
Myrtel(54) Disputed
1 point

Some news report quotes > Coldest month since 1946. > Wettest July since 1954. > Hottest summer since the great heatwave of 1960 etc, etc .......

No fear of "climate change" in the earlier years quoted ????

something has to fill the millions of TV channels. We even have to put up with your stupid "storm chasers" on UK TV ?? My Government want us to unplug our TVs - not to leave them on "standby mode" to save energy - yeah, and my arse is a Kipper !!!! While they - the politicians - use more energy in their mansions than a whole street of houses use. There is no political will so why bother. ??

Side: Diversify
jessald(1915) Disputed
2 points

Weather and climate are two different things.

Read the IPCC report. The science is sound.

Side: Diversify
1 point

The reason nothing was said on these other news stories was because it was probably local climates not global climates. This past year, and even this past decade have been the hottest in recorded history and the trend is still moving upward.

Could you provide sources for these other headlines.

I can empathize with you about hypocritical politicians, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the issue regardless. If we don't act then there will be serious consequences.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

I wonder if anybody has noticed that in countries that consume more petroleum the rate of global warming denial, is much higher.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

Conversely, in poorer countries which are envious of developed lifestyles, people are very quick to accept global warming, and call for an end to consumerism in the west.

Side: Renewable Energy

I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life living in a tree, eating beans and driving a Toyota Prius. If the polar bears have to be sacrificed in order to perpetuate modern living, so be it. Because life before industry was no life at all. Besides, the whole thing is made up to wean us off oil. Every major breakthrough comes from government organisations and government-funded scientists.

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

I have, not sure about all those people living in Pittsburgh though.

Side: Renewable Energy

No. The reason it's so hot is because it's summer. Humans are not causing the increase in heat, the sun is ;)

Side: Renewable Energy
1 point

This year, not this summer. That means that global temperatures were even setting records during the North Eastern blizzards this past winter.

Side: Renewable Energy
TERMINATOR(6751) Disputed
1 point

Let me get this straight:

This year was the hottest on record. No other year - on record, that is - has been hotter throughout the entire planet than was this year.

Now, tell me, does a few months of heat prove that the heat is going to be 'unending', and also that it is only going to increase? Couldn't this year just be a fluke of some sort?

What if the next half of this year becomes the coldest on record - would that disprove Global Warming?

Side: Renewable Energy

No, no, no. This year during the winter was freezing cold. ;)

Side: Learn Science