CreateDebate


Debate Info

118
51
yeah, why not? Nope, never did
Debate Score:169
Arguments:93
Total Votes:186
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yeah, why not? (61)
 
 Nope, never did (32)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(36300) pic



So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?

If there's one thing politicians rely on, is you forgetting the last scam they tried to put on the American people. I remember clearly the 'Next Ice Age' is coming scare in the '70's.  Now, I can see it for what it was then and what the whole global warming issue is now.

Here is a couple of articles from the '70's of the coming 'Ice Age' and how man is the evil behind it.

 

Here is one from....should I say?....ok..I will....Time Magazine in 1974

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

 

  Not to be outdone by Time magazine, here is an article from 'Newsweek' in 1975;

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-coming-ice-age

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/un-climate-chief-says-theres-more-errors-in-global-warming-report-.html

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/wow-nasa-admits-zero-evidence-of-global-warming-in-us-temp-data-not-expecting-any-increase-over-next.html

yeah, why not?

Side Score: 118
VS.

Nope, never did

Side Score: 51
8 points

The embedded YouTube video directly addresses those two commonly used sources as arguments against global warming. Enjoy!

3 - Climate Change anatomy of a myth
Side: Yeah, why not?
3 points

Why on earth would I read an article from the 1970s about a modern scientific problem? Yeah, scientists are wrong sometimes. This was also never, to my knowledge, a "consensus" which was acted upon like global warming is. It's not a "scam".

Side: Yeah, why not?
Argento(510) Disputed
1 point

The website you recommended is so strongly in favor of the existence of GW, to the point that some of the language used is meant to ridicule those that are not convinced.

Instead of focusing on the evidence that proves GW, this website is dedicated to disproving "the excuses" brought up by the "deniers".

This bias and separation of the masses into "deniers" and "those who care" is extremely unhelpful and borderline dangerous.

Side: Nope, never did
DEL681651(66) Disputed
3 points

The evidence for global warming is in the first 8 points. It defends global warming throughout the rest of the article. You tagged your article as "Nope, never did", so could you explain which of those 8 points you disagree with?

I don't understand how you found that article "borderline dangerous". That sounds awfully hyperbolic to me.

Side: Yeah, why not?
3 points

Whether or not Global Warming is real, which I believe it is and that it and it's symptoms effect the world in many ways, I still would rather be safe than sorry.

It is not hard to live environmentally, only inconvenient.

The one thing that is certain is that our resources are finite and if we don't conserve them, we won't need Global Warming to kill us...

Side: Yeah, why not?
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
0 points

Wouldn't you rather be smart than stupid?

People think they are making a difference for the world, when in reality, they are only making a difference for the Democratic party.

Side: Nope, never did
4 points

Geeze Jake, does it always have to be a political thing in your world? There's nothing at all wrong with conservation...never was, never will be. So what if Al Gore brought this to our attention...it would have been just as valid had any Republican done the homework. Outside of Al Gore, I don't know what this could possibly have to do with politics.

Side: Yeah, why not?
iamdavidh(4869) Disputed
4 points

... so when I recycle the DNC get's a tithe or something?

You're a very confused young man Jake.

btw, if the democratic party were to as a whole (it actually doesn't work that way with dems, they fight amongst themselves on everything) but pretend they all got together and said we're all going to agree on this no matter what science says because we need more votes...

the smart thing from a strictly vote getting perspective would be to completely ignore the situation, or deny it like a lot of Republicans (also btw, there are plenty of republicans who have pulled their head out of the sand long enough to realize it's a real issue as well, anyway)

because if you break it down by issue, dems would still win the majority of the environmental vote because of like every other issue outside of the environment.

Then there's the millions upon millions upon millions any polical figure stands to lose in big energy donations. Big energy is the biggest or close to the biggest political contributor in the world Jake. Nearly every "study" that says Global Warming is a farce comes from big energy, big energy pours money into the RNC coffers like it's going out of style, they do everything in their power to distract from or deny global warming.

There is soooooo much more money in being a global warming denier if you're a politician.

So this conspiracy you have makes no sense on any level. There is literally nothing to be gained by going along with conservation, all of the power and all of the money is with big energy. The only excuse one would have is if they thought it was true.

Which science says it is.

But hey, there's people who still think the earth is flat and 6000 years old,

so who is it that would rather be smart than stupid?

Side: Yeah, why not?
2 points

Wow Jake, care to back up your statements with some facts.

I already argued told you this once, but apparently I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE. The only person who is acting stupid here is you, because you are denying the myriad scientific evidence that supports the fact that humans are causing significant climate change. Whether it's democrats or republicans who support legislation to stop global warming shouldn't matter, because none of that has any effect on the actual science of climate change.

Please, when you have actual facts to support your case that global warming/climate change isn't being caused by humans then get back to me. Until then maybe you should stop politicizing scientific issues... it's detrimental to us all.

Side: Yeah, why not?
Pineapple(1448) Disputed
2 points

The environement we live in effects all people, not just democrats. I don't care who conserves, just that it happens.

This is not a democratic issue, it's a human issue.

I think we've had this conversation before. I'd like you to refer back to our previous conversation on global warming. If, after rereading that, you still have questions, I will be glad to clear anything up for you.

Side: Yeah, why not?
2 points

The Time magazine article got it half-right, but is a misinterpretation of the then evidence. I also first started reading about Global warming and the "Greenhouse effect" in the early 1970s in, I think, Science Fiction magazines. The increase of global temperatures is unprecedented and even if the most drastic action were taken now will continue for at least twenty years due to a lag effect. Remember that soot and other aerosols pumped into the atmosphere actually have a cooling effect so the problem is even worse than thermometers show. Global warming at its current rate will (WILL, not may) displace the Greenland ice shelf. This will displace the Gulf stream (or "Atlantic conveyor") causing a DECREASE in average temperatures in Northern Europe and the reduced salinility of the North Atlantic will also do for what is left of fish stocks. A mass melting of the arctic permafrost may release methane that will trigger an irreversible runaway effect--it has happened before, but it was nature alone not human engineered.

The warmer tropical waters ofthe mid-Atlantic will increase the hurricane count and are likely to make New York as popular a target as Florida.

Most of the Ross Ice Shelf is on its way North right now, in about a decade its remnants will hit the Bengula and Mozambique currents to recreate the coast to coast african desert that existed 20,000 years ago.

So many policticians seem to want to ignore any problem that stretches beyond their period of elected office that they may just end up like the inhabitants of Mohenjo-daro.

Side: Yeah, why not?
1 point

Why would I choose to disregard scientific evidence of a phenomenon? This is like asking, "do you believe in rainbows?" Of course I believe global warming is real.

The real question is whether or not human beings are primarily responsible for global warming, to which I would also answer yes. Although volcanic activity and other natural occurrences can account for a small percentage of the rise in CO2 emissions, they can hardly account for the total.

However, even if humans are not primarily responsible, if there are actions that we are taking that contribute to the rise in CO2 levels, then we have a responsibility to curtail those actions.

Side: Yeah, why not?

We should not forget that the "purpose" of supporting a view that the earth's temperatures are rising is mainly to alter our behavior in favor of the environment. Whether or not we find conclusive evidence supporting the temperature change, it is almost indisputable that CO2 emissions are not good for the environment on which our survival depends on.

The arguments against global warming seem to come mainly from big industry, or from those groups who refuse to change the status quo.

We need to change, whether we think that global warming is the main reason or not, the conclusion remains the same.

Side: Yeah, why not?
1 point

Global Warming is 50% man made, 50% natural. I still say we need to get off OIL and move to cleaner sources of energy and stop treating the only planet we have the only home we have as a giant waste-basket. We need to start protecting our planet and our environment around us and stop thinking about ourselves all the time and only the here and now. We need to think long term for our childrens future and make the world a better place. We can at least make the planet less toxic and hazardous for our children by stopping nuclear waste and weapons and stop ripping up our landscape.. - stop killing off species, and stop polluting our atomosphere making people sick. Its time to change our ways whether or not there is global warming. I still say there is some global warming ---though maybe not to the degree that Al Gore claims, we still should get away from Oil and I believe part of the reason we haven't seen as many effects from global warming is because we have begun to change our lifestyle and develop alternate methods of energuy.

Side: Yeah, why not?
1 point

there are also controversies these days that global warming is fake due to these decreasin temperatures..but technically, it is the effects of the global warming since the glaciers are melting down..and whatever..the temperature of earth has increased by about 3 degrees celcius..so if u literally see it, the temperature has increased globally --> global warming!

Side: Yeah, why not?

You have only to look at the devastation all around us to realize that the earth is undergoing major climate change. It's a common misconception that global warming refers only to hotter temperatures. Some of the signs of global warming are increased storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes, more severe winters, and melting of polar ice caps. In the last few months, we have experienced all of these and more. The only question is how we're going to stop global warming, not whether or not it exists.

Side: yeah, why not?

Well..., since global warming is created by too many people releasing too many green house gasses into the atmosphere, I propose reducing the world's population ;)

Side: yeah, why not?
1 point

Wow, you just overturn modern science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: yeah, why not?

Exactly, why not? If there's already evidence of ozone layer depletion allowing more heat, then global warming is also quite a believable theory as well.

Side: yeah, why not?
4 points

For a long time, I have been anticipating the point when "money" is brought into the game.

I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig. I was hoping that he would have his 15 minutes of fame with his earth saving documentary and then hopefully leave us alone.

But I must also admit that there has been some good out of this, and that is the fact that car companies are now looking into new engines, hybrids etc etc. That's great!

But then ManBearPig wanted more...

New taxes. The minute I heard how much money Al Gore is going to make by taxing us on ManBearPig was the minute that every single shred of doubt about this being a lie vanished.

So what should we do instead?? What if it's true? What if ManBearPig is real and coming to get us?!

I have a suggestion.

Instead of taxing the lowest denominator, the individual, how about we focus on the technology and the manufacturers.

How about we go to the car manufacturers and say "You got 10 years, to come up with an engine that produces half the CO2, achieves double the miles per gallon, and can run on a fuel that is abundant in nature. Here is $100 million towards the research, and there will be another £100 million for you if you are the first manufacturer to achieve this goal". You say this to all car manufacturers and then sit back and watch them deliver the goods. Instead of spending the $100 million on a week in Iraq, make it an incentive. Make it a prize, and watch how quickly we get results.

You can do this with airlines as well. Instead of taxing the passengers, why not put the pressure on the manufacturing companies to come up with cleaner engines? And then give the airlines incentives for buying the new engines, like lower airport taxes for a set of years.

Or how about this. How did I not think about this before!

Use the talent show formula to find new scientists! Think about it.

"America's Got Talented Scientists". The prize is one million dollars, and each contestant or group of scientists has to create a new environmentally friendly engine. Voila! In just one season you have a new engine!

Now new taxes for ManBearPig!

Side: Nope, never did
jessald(1915) Disputed
3 points

1) Nobody gives a shit about Al Gore, ok? The people who matter are the IPCC.

2) We tried that. See also Chapter 5.

Side: Yeah, why not?
1 point

Nice first sentance! hahahahahahahaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

"Nobody gives a shit about Al Gore, ok?"

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig.

Well that's understandable, because Al Gore is not a scientist; however, you should listen to the real climate scientists who have shown, through tremendous amounts of evidence, that:

1. The earth is warming

2. This warming is unprecedented, and unnatural (a.k.a. at a rate never witnessed before in nature)

3. The warming is predominately being caused by greenhouse gasses

4. Human activity in the last 100 years has been the primary cause of greenhouse gasses

5. If humans to continue to emit greenhouse gasses at our current rate, the effects on our planet will be dire (massive crop failures, and extinctions due to increased aridity)

You are complaining about the money Al Gore makes from this, but to be honest, I don't give a shit about him. He helped to put global warming more in the public's awareness, but at the same time increased the politicalness(?) of the issue. His movie, was in general correct, aside from a few minor exaggerations and errors; however, as I said before none of this should matter. What matters is the actual science.

How we address the issue can obviously be up for debate, and the ideas you proposed seemed like good ones; however the important thing is that we do something. Otherwise we will go down in history as the generation that sat back and did nothing as the earth went to ruin.

(By the way, I love South Park, but this is one issue that got wrong...and I'm super serial about that)

Side: Yeah, why not?
Argento(510) Disputed
4 points

What I agree with, is the fact that some goodness/progress has come out of this. I always thought that we have spent too much time in the age of the combustion engine. There are so many other ideas out there that need to be explored. The GW movement, has indeed provided a "reason" for us to make some progress.

But let's not confuse that, with whether GW is actually happening or not.

For the past couple of years, the media have adopted a whole terminology and an attitude of "indisputability" towards GW. If the time spent on selling the idea of GW was spent instead on explaining the evidence in detail to the public, then we would have a much fairer debate. The problem now is that you have to go looking for the evidence, cause the news is only informing you of the measures we are taking to combat this threat. Naturally, a lot of people will be pissed off at the fact that we are taking measures, even though the theory has not been proved in their minds.

After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, you will find that a lot of the "scientific consensus" has been fabricated. The sheer fact that the evidence is in dispute should be reason enough to not take any measures yet. No court will ever make a decision on a case that is substantiated by disputable evidence.

Look, all I am saying is this. Some people are convinced, others don't really care, and others care but are not convinced. To then introduce a new tax measure that will affect all three of these groups indiscriminately, is a travesty of dictatorial proportions.

Just because the cause is noble does NOT justify the means...

Like I said in my previous post: It does NOT MATTER if Global Warming is happening or not. We have been due a progress with regards to new technology for some time now. If we are concerned about the future then by all means, take measures WHERE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Taxing individuals is making matters worse because what that says is that, the technology and choice that people have will remain the same, but from now on we will punish people for making certain choices. So the Arabs still make their trillions. The car companies are not pressured to invent new technology. And average Joe is the only one to foot the bill for "saving the earth".

If the financial crisis hadn't happened, I'm pretty sure we would have had a new tax by now already.

This movement has settled so persistently into the media terminology and agenda that I now believe it is pointless to debate if it exists or not. Those that are not convinced are now called "deniers" and there is no longer space for debate, especially given the fact that the "deniers" are seen as enemies to a noble cause.

So the only thing that matters now is the kind of measures we are going to take. Our duty as citizens is to make sure no one pulls the wool over our eyes. And in this case, I think those "deniers" will prove to be very helpful in making sure the "believers" are not screwed by their governments.

Side: Nope, never did
3 points

Record lows? But what about the record highs?

are you suggesting that the Earth goes through a process of hot and cold naturally?

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

Wow, that's surprising that a reputed scientific journal would post something about an ice age...wait, Time isn't a reputed scientific journal?

The truth is, even during this brief time of cooling there were still more scientists concerned about global warming than global cooling. Climate deniers jumped on this article despite the fact that it was poorly researched, and didn't reflect the view of the scientific community.

In addition, we have much better ways of measuring the effects we have on climate then we did in the 70's.

So the answer is yes the earth does go through processes of hot and cold naturally...but the current warming is not natural at all.

Side: Yeah, why not?
1 point

They did say that global cooling was the result of pollution back then. If there was so much evidence mounting for global warming were we tricked into thinking it didn't matter? If I may ask Soc, why do you think global warming is not as natural as global cooling, or the present warming anyway?

Side: Yeah, why not?
lawnman(1106) Disputed
1 point

How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?

Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?

Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world?

Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?

Side: Im not a convenient idiot

Here are a few interesting comments in the article that are the same exact ones made today except in reverse...

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years..."

"when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades."

"The trend shows no indication of reversing." what? it can't be reversed?

"Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland..." ahh those damn telltale signs that get us to pay more taxes to save the world.

"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round." lol...maybe now that it's melting..we have saved the human race from the next ice age only to find we are going to enter the next 'desert age'. Going forward, we need to pay closer attention to those "Telltale signs" more closely.

"Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought." then what's the cause of Africa's drought now? oh yea...global warming..oops..I mean 'Climate change'.

"The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example." uh? Again..I thought all of the recent violent storms and tornadoes were caused by...

"Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun." hmmm..i'm starting to see a partern here.

"Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend." well at least back then, man was only 'partly' responsible. Now man is 'completely' responsible, so we are evolving.

"...climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning.." fuel burning? but isn't that...? never mind

"But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate." thank god in todays world we don't need all that confusing information. We can all agree that Al Gore has all the information he needs to tax us.

"Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic." in politics, as long as you use the word 'Catastrophic', you can pretty much get anything you want. "If we let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, it will be 'catastrophic' on our economy. Therefore, give me 50 billion please"

"Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row." wow...wasn't that episode on mtv's 'scare tactics'? Scared the hell out of me.

I think Time magazine forgot to delete all those archives concerning the coming 'Ice Age'.

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

Times is not a scientific journal. They are not peer reviewed, and in fact do not represent the view of the scientific community.

At the time this article was written, more scientists were concerned about global warming despite then global cooling. Watch the video someone posted on the other side of the debate...it is very informative.

Side: Yeah, why not?

Man, you GW guys have a comeback for everything :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side: Nope, never did

I guess I can sum it up as:

1. I don't think that the world will change its ways

2. I refuse to live in fear

3. I will deal with it as it comes

4. Maybe I'll end up with beach front property ;)

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

What if I told you we had solved global problems like this before?

By banning ChloroFloroCarbons (CFCs) we actually made the hole in the ozone (that we originally caused) smaller. We helped to save the planet once, why can't we do it again?

Side: Yeah, why not?
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

1. Overly cynical

2. Prefers to ignore reality

3. Short-sighted

4. Asshole ;)

Yep, typical conservative.

Btw, fixing things before they break is not "living in fear", it's called not being stupid.

Side: Yeah, why not?

Well, you know, you may not agree with my views but they have gotten me this far ;)

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

My own research has discovered that the demise of the dinosaurs was nothing to do with asteroids, but was Dino-induced global warming.

The vast majority of dinosaurs were herbivores, essentially with the same digestive processes as, say an elephant or a cow. A cow produces around 100kg of methane-- a most notorious greenhouse gas, per year--an elephant 1000kg through animal flatulence.. Dinosaurs were basically enormous cows--on a pro-rata basis they would have blown off around six tons of methane per year each.

Kenya supports about 30,000 Elephants today--as recently as the 1930s it supported a million. Fredrick Selous estimated that there were 10 million Elephant South of the Zambezi before 1870--without human or other competition we could guess a Brontosaurus density of 1 per ten hectares, say 13 billion world-wide,,, that's 78 billion tons of fart gas per year. Humans today produce only 30 billion tons from industrial and mechanical sources, clearly we can afford a few more beans before the end.

Side: Nope, never did
2 points

There is no scientific evidence of Global Warming. It could happen, yes, but it is not happening now.

New research shows that it is not because of greenhouse gases, but because of the Sun. The Sun is burning brighter than it has in 60,000 years. The least percentage of the melting of ice is human activity.

Side: Nope, never did

I guess the thing is that I'm old and I don't give a damn. I'm gonna die soon any way so I just have to maintain the status quo until then. ;)

Side: Nope, never did
jessald(1915) Disputed
1 point

What about your kids?

....................................

Side: Yeah, why not?

Yeah, they pissed me off so..... ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Side: Nope, never did
1 point

I add my argument to the "Nope, never did" side but the truth is that I did believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming up until about one year ago. That was the first time that I actually researched the opposition. When I looked at all the evidence from both sides and filtered out as much noise as possible I came to the conclusion that AGW isn't all it's made out to be.

Side: Nope, never did

After 322 days and countless arguments (which I haven't read) to the contrary, I still chose this side ;)

Side: Nope, never did