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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Ignorant Joe Biden Speaks
Vice President Joe Biden tells a group of firefighters visiting the White House that the dramatic increase of forest fires in the United States was likely a result of climate change – even though he couldn’t prove it. "The truth of the matter is, we don’t know for certain whether this increase, this up-tempo you guys are going through the last 15 years is because of climate change. I can’t prove any one fire is a consequence of climate change,” he said.
“We can all argue a whole hell of a lot about whether there is climate change. I don’t think there is much of an argument. The only people I know who deny climate change are the same people who deny gravity,” he said.
So the question is what does gravity have to do with forest fires ? Does Joe know ?
Be careful, my friend. Let us closely analyze uncle Joe's comment. He said climate change is a fact. Well of course it is. The Earth has been cooling and heating for billions of years before man came along and it will long after we are gone. In between when man is still present, there will continue to be periods of cooling and heating. The next mini ice age is predicted around 2030.
What remains to be seen is if uncle Joe used a freudian slip. Did he really mean to say global warming or not. Maybe he really does not believe in global warming or he would have used that phrase instead.
Global warming is a huge money machine. The money will keep flowing as long as there are alarmists who can convince enough people that it needs to be studied and dealt with.
No I am not. However, money does play a role in it. The other reason is the left is hell bent on getting rid of fossil fuel and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. Making up scare tactics, also known as fear mongering as you like to put it, claiming the Earth is going to hell in a hand basket with global warming if we don't get rid of fossil fuel based on flawed data to influence the weak minded is shameful.
Not every scientist is bought and paid for by either side. However, you being a bright person should realize that way too many scientists have a political agenda that will further their cause or their pocket book. Scientists have the ego that what they tell people will be believed by the public. We are not all so gullible.
That does nothing to answer my question. Are you or are you not insinuating that the global scientific community are pawns of the American political left?
Cite this please. I assure you anything you can find will be a media misrepresentation of climate science. The things you say make it appear as if you don't understand science at all. It appears you get your science from the media rather than the source.
For instance when someone doesn't know the definitions of "global warming" and "climate change" it shows how little they know of climate science. In the sciences the two terms refer to specific things; Global warming refers to the earths ongoing average temperatures, climate change refers to changes due to climate forcing like global warming.
I wonder if your study on those previous heatings and coolings of the earth you totally gloss over are as in depth as your study of the next ice age you claim is happening.
When the average person refers to climate change it has nothing to do with humans. Climate change has occurred naturally numerous times throughout time. Earth is always going through a climate change. Right now it is in a warming period that has nothing to do with global warming.
Global warming is referred to having to deal with greenhouse gas that supposedly causes the temperature to rise due to human activity.
climate change= non human activity
global warming= human activity
This is the way that people interpret it and the easiest way to differentiate between the two. Do you need a citation that global warming is strictly a result of human activity.
Nice effort trying to make me look foolish, too bad it failed.
Here is the article by a university in Great Britain from scientists who claim the ice age is coming. I am sure you are much more qualified than they are, so have at it.
When the average person refers to climate change it has nothing to do with humans.
What do you base this on, exactly? In the United States, climate change is a politically charged statement that has become interchangeable with anthropogenic climate change.
Earth is always going through a climate change. Right now it is in a warming period that has nothing to do with global warming.
If the earth is warming, then it does have to do with global warming. I think you are trying to say it has nothing to do with Anthropogenic Climate Change, which is a statement that would require evidence.
Global warming is referred to having to deal with greenhouse gas that supposedly causes the temperature to rise due to human activity.
Again, that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
This is the way that people interpret it and the easiest way to differentiate between the two. Do you need a citation that global warming is strictly a result of human activity.
It is clear that this is how you interpret it, but where is your evidence it is how others differentiate them? Particularly considering how mistaken the differentiation is, scientifically speaking.
Here is the article by a university in Great Britain from scientists who claim the ice age is coming. I am sure you are much more qualified than they are, so have at it.
So why is it that you are so willing to accept research from one particular group of scientists, while denying research from the majority of the scientific community? Don't you think it is possible that you are falling victim to confirmation bias?
George Will agrees with me. He believes in climate change and not global warming. I am sure you know who he is and his position on the topics.
A warming Earth does not have to have anything to do with global warming. You want to mix the two so you can defend the environmentalists. There is plenty of evidence to dispute greenhouse gas having an effect on global warming. It really would not matter how many examples I gave since you are a believer in global warming and nothing will ever change your mind, isn't that correct.
Scientists can be bought and paid for to say anything if the money is right, just like lawyers. I look at the facts and evidence. Scientists' research is meaningless if they already have their conclusions first and gather evidence to support it. It should be the other way around, but too many of them have a political agenda.
George Will agrees with me. He believes in climate change and not global warming. I am sure you know who he is and his position on the topics.
So? George Will is not a scientist, so why do you believe that a politically motivated political commentator has more authority on matters of science than the global scientific community? Additionally, as has been explained to you, global warming is a form of climate change.
A warming Earth does not have to have anything to do with global warming. You want to mix the two so you can defend the environmentalists.
No, I just want you to use the words properly. Properly using the terms does nothing to validate the theory itself.
There is plenty of evidence to dispute greenhouse gas having an effect on global warming.
Such as?
It really would not matter how many examples I gave since you are a believer in global warming and nothing will ever change your mind, isn't that correct.
No, and it is also insulting. I believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change only because of the evidence I have seen. I am willing to change my beliefs if shown evidence. You are the one who has indicated otherwise, so please do not project said foible onto me.
Scientists can be bought and paid for to say anything if the money is right, just like lawyers.
The overwhelming majority of them stand to gain absolutely nothing from it, yet they recognize it. Why?
I look at the facts and evidence.
Yet you accept the outcome with less of a basis of facts and evidence. You deny the consensus of the global scientific community and their evidence and accept the consensus of a very small number of people, most of whom do not have a scientific background.
Scientists' research is meaningless if they already have their conclusions first and gather evidence to support it.
But that is exactly what you are doing, isn't it?
It should be the other way around, but too many of them have a political agenda.
I am still waiting for the evidence you believe justifies the insinuations you have made regarding the legitimacy (or lack there of) of their agendas.
Thanks for the link. I was correct that you get your information on science from the media and not the source. Media has a long history of botching claims from the sciences. You have been grossly misled, you cannot draw the conclusions of a mini ice age from the study they are using nor from the expert they are quoting.
Here is the article by a university in Great Britain from scientists who claim the ice age is coming. I am sure you are much more qualified than they are, so have at it.
The study was on the sun entering a maunder minimum, no measurements were taken of what this means for our climate. 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. You speak of qualifications but your own example lacks in scope of the study and the expertise of the author being quoted.
Furthermore the quote from the mathematician does go against current knowledge, studies on the effects of a maunder minimum have been done years before the study Zharkova participated in. She has made claims not only out of her expertise and out of the scope of her study, but in the face of evidence to the contrary.
So about .1 degree difference, CO2 will still by far be the main driver for our current situation. Hardly a mini ice age if we are still warming.
Read the science not the media, media has a long history of being a bad communicator for the sciences. To clear it up, yes a maunder minimum is going to happen, no it wont have a mini ice age effect.
As for the definitions of "global warming" and ' climate change". I provided NASA's take on the subject, half of your definition is still off so apparently you didn't read it. So one more time with quotes;
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
Or do you get your science definitions from the media instead of science too?Climate change does not = non human activity as you claim. If I were discussing rocket science and someone were to use the Star Wars definition of the force instead of the applicable use of the word how seriously would they be taken?
I read the article. Climate change has occurred many times before humans walked the earth. Climate change can take millions of years if needed before it changes. The definitions on the right side of the article is just what I said. I hope you don't take seriously everything a scientist says. They are wrong much more than they are right. I really don't give a hoot what technical terms they use.
For over 4.5 billion years climate change had nothing to do with humans, and it still doesn't.
I personally didn't claim there was going to be a mini ice age. I just gave you a site by scientists who said there could be. I don't know, but we will find out in due time.
For over 4.5 billion years climate change had nothing to do with humans, and it still doesn't.
There are 1.2 billion cars on the Earth today. 150 years ago, there were zero. A single car generates a lot of heat. Imagine that release of heat TIMES A BILLION. That in itself should be logical. Why does it make sense to you that the heat caused by a billion cars would have no global impact? Especially when everyone who has studied this data says that it does have an impact?
And cars are only a tiny piece of the puzzle. But you don't have to be a biologist to understand the logical connections behind what's going on.
One of the key ways that Earth corrects itself from extreme climate changes is through it's natural ecosystem, namely, trees. And yet, since 1900, 90% of the forests that covered the US are gone. An estimated half of the world's forests have been cleared through human activity.
In the 4.5 billion years you refer to, oil wasn't burned. Coal wasn't burned. Factories didn't run. There were no cars or planes or trains or computers. And the temperature and CO2 levels of the atmosphere never rose in the patters that they are rising in now. And countless tests have confirmed that the things that humans are doing are having an impact.
This will be the last time I ever comment on one of your posts. You are an absolute liar and not worth my time. At least Generic Name does not resort to complete false hoods. If he does then I will be done with him also. It is one thing to state a strong opinion and dispute data as inaccurate, but this goes beyond outrageous. Here it is. You said the following:
One of the key ways that Earth corrects itself from extreme climate changes is through it's natural ecosystem, namely, trees. And yet, since 1900, 90% of the forests that covered the US are gone.
Oh really!!! There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. And you knew it and I called you out. That makes you a liar. No way can you be that misinformed.
Like I said, I am done with you. Please have some consideration and not respond to any of my posts in the future. Do you think you can refrain from doing that or are you an inconsiderate you know what on top of that.
As GenericName pointed out, I meant to say 1600, not 1900. The report you cited, from the year 2000, states that 2/3rds of the forest that covered the US in this time are gone. So yes, forests are decreasing.
You also failed to acknowledge any of the other points that I made. I apologize for the typo in the date, but did you find fault with my other arguments?
Instead of freaking out, you could take into consideration that a typo was involved. For example, since 1600, 90% of the forests that covered the area we call the U.S. are gone.
On top of that, you ignored literally everything else from his post. Why is that?
I really don't give a hoot what technical terms they use.
I accept your defeat on the point. Yeah what you say on the subject can really be taken with a grain of salt then. You clearly are not being skeptical on this subject. You are clearly just making claims up that have no backing.
You are making broad claims that have no meaning. "Climate has changed before" well duh. When you compare why it has changed before then you are adding to the discussion. You appear to be just parroting biased media claims.
You accept a mini ice age on a whim, from a person who isn't an expert on the subject using a study that doesn't address the issue in the face of evidence to the contrary. But then say I hope you don't take seriously everything a scientist says. They are wrong much more than they are right
You will clearly say anything to keep your current beliefs.
Cite another of your sources.
For over 4.5 billion years climate change had nothing to do with humans, and it still doesn't.
How about for this claim here. I can't wait to see what blog you use that doesn't discuss the mechanisms of change but only that things changed. A real contribution to science for sure.
Your beliefs that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming are a complete myth without one shred of objective evidence to back it up. All data put forth is flawed from the start to get the result you desire. Nice try though.
I never said a mini ice age was imminent, did I. Please stop putting words in my mouth, it doesn't look good for you.
Scientists make up phrases and conclusions to promote their own personal agenda. Not all of them, of course, There are many objective scientists in all fields, but their is also a great deal of them who could care less about factual scientific results. These are the ones you need to stop listening to.
All data put forth is flawed from the start to get the result you desire.
Scientists make up phrases and conclusions to promote their own personal agenda.
Debate by accusation huh? Can you give evidence for these claims or is this part of the global conspiracy you keep alluding to but never substantiate? Where are these flawed data you disagree with? I see no reason to chase an unsupported conspiracy theory.
I never said a mini ice age was imminent, did I.
You are the one who used this as an example of climate continuing to change. You said thats what scientists are predicting this then I asked you to provide a source. What passes as science to you is actually bad journalism. This gives reason to doubt your claims on other areas of science if this is how you form your understanding of the sciences.
Do you want to defend, as science, the media quoting a mathematician who is making claims out of her expertise who is also using a study that lacks the scope to make such claims. You seem fine using journalists for your opinions rather than than scientific sources.
See above you use a journalist, George Will, as support for your position. He is no authority in sciences let alone specialized in climate change. You take his opinion on the subject over the vast majority of scientists from across the globe. You are using non experts to support your position.
You keep alluding to some global conspiracy but cannot show anything wrong with the science. If saying who pays for something is enough to debunk a scientific claims then how about you look into the minority of scientists who disagree and see who funds them?
Saying who pays for something may be reason to be skeptical but the real measure if science has any strength behind their claims is peer review. Luckily in sciences they discuss methodology when determining if certain claims have weight or not.
Support for mans role in climate change has a broad base of scientific support from across the globe. Many different scientists from different backgrounds and social upbringing. No national or international scientific organization rejects that mans role in todays climate. To think that worldwide everyone is in on some huge group lie is silly. It makes more sense that a small group of scientists are corrupt or inept rather than some global conspiracy forming or most scientists being inept.
I guess if you are going to go with a conspiracy theory its go big or go home huh?
Earlier you said this;
I hope you don't take seriously everything a scientist says. They are wrong much more than they are right.
We didn't do things like put a rover on Mars by luck you know and you have shown many reasons to doubt your objectivity on this issue. I would think this stems from your inability to source what is science rather than scientists being wrong most of the time.
Your beliefs that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming are a complete myth without one shred of objective evidence to back it up. All data put forth is flawed from the start to get the result you desire. Nice try though.
Yeah, except for, you know, all the actual objective evidence put out by the scientific community. I can understand not believing the evidence is sufficient, but to say there isn't any evidence is objectively, categorically, demonstrably wrong.
I never said a mini ice age was imminent, did I. Please stop putting words in my mouth, it doesn't look good for you.
"The next mini ice age is predicted around 2030." Fifteen years is imminent.
Scientists make up phrases and conclusions to promote their own personal agenda.
The term you are looking for is called linguistics. People make up phrases in order to represent ideas. That's how language works.
There are many objective scientists in all fields, but their is also a great deal of them who could care less about factual scientific results. These are the ones you need to stop listening to.
But you aren't providing any evidence as to who those scientists are or upon what basis you claim they do not care about factual scientific results.
After careful consideration, lol, I have concluded with certainty that you made a typo and were not trying to exploit the fact that I am a new poster on here. I accept the veracity of your statement. Sorry I came across as belligerent , I am better than that. My deepest apologies, sincerely.
The one thing that did not surprise me was your inability to first use a buffer comment before you claimed a typo mistake. Very, very few people on this planet know how to take a mistake or use an apology and turn it to their advantage. If someone taught you correctly you would be able to turn a negative into a positive for yourself.
Yes, the ability to apologize in a unique way is an art form that allows one to manipulate an unfortunate situation and get what they wanted from it. However, very few can comprehend and accomplish this, it takes practice and one must be humble enough to pull it off.
One last word on global warming. I will take guys like Al Gore seriously when he starts living the lifestyle of someone who is deeply concerned about the issue. I have read about a couple of men who have drastically changed their way of life over this issue. Until Al "The ozone man" Gore does this, he is nothing more than an opportunist exploiting a hot button political issue for his monetary advantage, among other things. This makes him shameful and down right dishonest.
Why bring up Al Gore? Anyone who is serious about AGW and Climate Change finds him to be a complete and utter joke. He is not representative of those who actually care about the issue. He is not a scientist, he is not a "Representative for Climate Change", he's just a hypocritical ass.
So I recommend not conflating him with people who are actually serious about this issue.
In response to your points here, I am not Al Gore. I am not a politician. I'm not quite sure how your final paragraph there would provide as an argument against global warming.
Beyond deforestation, I still stand by the points that I made in my original post here, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on them.
Ahem:
There are 1.2 billion cars on the Earth today. 150 years ago, there were zero. A single car generates a lot of heat. Imagine that release of heat TIMES A BILLION. That in itself should be logical. Why does it make sense to you that the heat caused by a billion cars would have no global impact? Especially when everyone who has studied this data says that it does have an impact?
Edit: And to be clear, the 1.2 billion estimate only includes cars that are on the roads today. The number of cars that have been in use since the invention of the vehicle is even higher.
And cars are only a tiny piece of the puzzle. But you don't have to be a biologist to understand the logical connections behind what's going on.
In the 4.5 billion years you refer to, oil wasn't burned. Coal wasn't burned. Factories didn't run. There were no cars or planes or trains or computers. And the temperature and CO2 levels of the atmosphere never rose in the patters that they are rising in now. And countless tests have confirmed that the things that humans are doing are having an impact.
Oh how the tables turn. Why is it that you can't accept text written on a website, but everyone else has to? The reason I asked is because his thoughts don't seem to go together and it wouldn't make sense for him to say it.
