CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
There will be a "mini ice age" in 2030, solar scientists have said.
We are now able to predict solar cycles with far greater accuracy than ever before thanks to a new model which shows irregularities in the sun’s 11-year heartbeat.
The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a "mini ice age".
The scientists found magnetic waves in two different layers of the sun’s interior which fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the sun.
“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 per cent," Professor Zharkova said.
The magnetic wave patterns show that there will be fewer sunspots in the next two solar cycles. Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022 and Cycle 26, from 2030 to 2040 will both have a significant reduction in solar activity.
You guys are great. If a scientist predicts heat you say, "scientists don't know what they are talking about". Then when scientists predict cold you say, "those scientists are right on the money"
Bias does make people do that. Ultimately time will tell and people on one side or the other will have been right, despite bias. Personally, I am biased against predictions in general. Statistically, they are usually wrong. Now that scientists are predicting every possible outcome, I guess I have to get back on board right?...
It is worse in this case though. Instead of being against scientists making predictions because they have been wrong before, he is against scientists solely to protect his wallet. Plus, not only does he reject the costly science, he also rejects evolution because he doesn't want to pay to fix global warming.
I don't believe the science is settled on rush hour traffic. Scientists have not reached a consensus on what causes it or if it even exists. I believe the concept is being pushed by carpool advocates who stand to gain from increased carpool lane accessibility.
Open your eyes man. It is obvious that rush hour traffic is real. There are only a handful of scientists who actually believe there is no consensus. Don't you want to leave a more open freeway for your children?
When sun spots are one the wain, and the oceans have finally covered the San Fernando freeway, due of course to the fools not driving enough Prius's and the ever present evil of the Republicans in general, there will at long last be an end to the bickering over GW and Nancy Pelosi can return to her solar powered house boat at the corner if Mission and Embaradaro streets on San Francisco island.
Maybe you could help me figure this out: Why is a desire to help alleviate possible environmental damage considered a negative thing to so many on the right?
Daaaaa course onacounta it's all a lib plan to share the wealth enough to result in all the developed nations becoming economically responsible for all the underdeveloped nations. A step in the direction of the utopian world government fantasy.
Right. It's not taken to be as serious as the left takes it. Because it is not taken seriously, it is seen as a misdirection with the actual goal being economic in nature rather than ecological.
Thought I gave one. The right doesn't take climate predictions seriously and they see ecological concerns as primarily money driven and thus insincere.
Hadn't seen that at the time. I don't understand how ecological concerns could be primarily money driven for the overwhelming majority of people, since 99% of those who consider it an issue do not stand to gain from the policies that would be enacted. In fact, most would see short term negative effects (on a personal level I mean).
The bias assumes that most people are being duped by the interest groups that stand to gain. They understand the real economic motivation.
Take the opposite position to understand how this works. Most people on the right do not stand to gain from promoting economic freedom through reduced regulations. They promote it on principle. The left often believe that those on the right are being duped by big corporate interests. Same phenomenon, different issue.
I may not think that applies to the issue of climate change, but I must say that was excellently put and I finally understand the opposing side's motivation. Thank you for that.
Remember how all the nations keep meeting in these much heralded global summits to take action against GW? Remember what it always boils down to? How the rich nations are pressured to donate hundreds of billions to developing countries? How every time the smelly turd of truth is thrown on the table, everyone leaves.
2009 - 192 governments convene for the UN climate summit in Copenhagen with expectations of a new global agreement high; but they leave only with a controversial political declaration, the Copenhagen Accord.
2010 - Developed countries begin contributing to a $30bn, three-year deal on "Fast Start Finance" to help them "green" their economies and adapt to climate impacts.
Neither of the sources you provided offered any evidence regarding the supposed motivation of the political left.
Additionally, the reason richer countries are pressured to provide more is that they have more to provide. I don't doubt for a second that China's position in this is a complete load of crap, that is for sure, but India for example is going through a sort of industrial revolution and thus stands more to lose than almost any other economic or political power, so of course they would ask for more contributions from the First World.
None of that supports your idea that climate change is some conspiracy to even out global economies.
Why would China's position be so drastically different from India's? Both are playing catch up. India is just more behind because of poor economic policies.
China's infrastructure is far more developed than India's, and their economic position is far more powerful than India's. While India has indeed faced some poor economic policies, they don't have the internal capacity to play catch up at the rate China is, and thus have more to lose from economic sanctions caused by possible climate regulations.
It isn't considered fixing the environmental damage, though. That's what I don't get. Why can't we talk about local problems instead of global warming. It is considered fixing the entire planet that will be drastically changed so much that life will die out. They reject the idea that we could destroy the whole planet and in doing so ignore environmental damage. It is strange, but I think it comes down to money. It would cost money to fix the environment.
It is a negative thing because it allows for a swath of people to stay alive and I want those people to go away so that my rush hour commute becomes a pleasure drive.
Multiple lines of research actually predicted this a few years ago. In fact, there was already an announcement made in 2011 that a new solar minimum would occur. You can do a quick Google search to verify this. But the expectation was that we quite possibly should have already been experiencing it.
Solar activity is generally very predictable. Around every 11 years, the sun enters a cycle of increased activity. And then after a while it settles down. If this announcement is in fact accurate, it looks like it's making the already established prediction more precise, not establishing a totally new body of knowledge that contradicts climate science.
That being said, solar activity isn't the primary agent for the current rise in average global temperatures. Multiple lines of independent evidence strongly suggest that human activity is the primary cause and that hasn't changed.
That article is so sensationalized and misleading. When they say, "The model shows that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040 causing a 'mini ice age'.", what they really should have said is, "the model shows that the number of sunspots will fall by 60 percent between 2030 and 2040 causing global temperatures to fall by 0.162 to 0.468 degrees Fahrenheit." That's right, this "mini ice age" could make temperature plummet by almost half a degree!!! Oh the horror! We're all going to freeze to death!
Agreed, the article is terribly misleading. First off the study was on the sun, not the sun affecting our climate. The way they have the study framed though it appears that the 97% accuracy is regarding climate but it is really regarding the solar minimum happening. The media seems to be running with this huge misrepresentation though.
Not only does the study not even address what this maunder minimum means for climate the author of that study who is being quoted (Zharkova) is also a mathematician not a climatologist. Any claims she has about climate should be taken with a grain of salt because she is well out of her expertise. Chalk the confusion up to terrible journalism and loads of confirmation bias from their readers.
When discussing science it is best to view peer reviewed research when possible and there is research on what effects a maunder minimum would have on climate. Climatologists have weighed in on the issue years ago finding the solar minimum to not be really that big a deal, co2 will still be the prevailing force considering climate.
I think this is one of the studies you were using for your numbers.
Any assessment that concludes this maunder minimum would be good for climate change or end climate change is neglecting to address things like ocean acidification as well.
Despite having all the advanced technology to which they referred at their disposal meteorologists and scientists can't forecast the weather accurately much further than 3 or 4 days ahead. In this context I would take this report with a ''dose'' of salts.
