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.
Well, I don't think it was, but I'd be happy to read a link.
Anecdotally, here's my answer.. We're talking about the ice cap here.. It melts when the temps are warm, and freezes when they're cold. That means the shoreline goes up and down as the temperature changes..
Back in 1848 New York WAS already a city built on the present shoreline. That tells me that the mean earth temperature was about the same in 1848..
Back in 1848 New York WAS already a city built on the present shoreline. That tells me that the mean earth temperature was about the same in 1848..
See above. The temperature doesn't determine the shoreline other than to reduce it or freeze it, and even if we used this logic, we'd still find that super hot temperatures would evaporate water into gas form and not create more of it in liquid form.
It doesn't matter if it's under water. It matters that it's floating in water, thus equalling its density. The iceberg is floating, meaning its density has raised the water as high as it can. Melting it equals the same water depth.
It doesn't matter if it's under water. It matters that it's floating in water, thus equalling its density. The iceberg is floating, meaning its density has raised the water as high as it can. Melting it equals the same water depth.
Jesus Christ, you're just so unfathomably stupid. Firstly, you're confusing density with volume. Secondly, if something which was previously floating melts into liquid, then obviously there is more liquid than there was previously, hence raising the level of the ocean.
If something which was previously floating melts into liquid, then obviously there is more liquid than there was previously, hence raising the level of the ocean.
Bwahahahahaha! No you don't you unscientific, ignorant dolt!
Okay, so let's say we fully accept your premise. How do you plan on stopping 4 billion people who fully give the West the Middle finger from polluting?
How do you plan on stopping 4 billion people who fully give the West the Middle finger from polluting?
Hello again, D:
Well, they're not gonna do it because we ask 'em to..
We need to offer a market based answer.. We need a new source that'll provide CHEAP energy.. I think that source is gonna be fusion.. But, right now, sustained fusion doesn't exist.. Yet, science thinks it can be.. And, I think so too..
So, what I would DO, is put together a Manhattan Project style of endeavor.. You know about that, don't you? Of course, in order to put that together, we'd have to embrace the science, and the leader of the free world doesn't.
So, we're NOT gonna get the Chinese to believe it, if our very own orange president doesn't believe it..
I embrace the science. We've had thousands of extreme climate cycles in the Earth's history. How do you plan on stopping the Earth from doing what it naturally does with or without man?
I ask because if you can manipulate the Earth's climate to save it, then there's really not a problem. If you cannot fix it, screaming about theory while having no way to block other countries from polluting, isn't particularly helpful.
That's why we stare at the left on this issue. Your only answer is to cut off our own abilities to function with no response to the other infinite issues that would then need solved.
We'd be hurt, and then have actually accomplished nothing. The left's blanket answer means we lose either way. If the rest of the world's gonna remain industrialized, we might as well enjoy it too.
If the left can come up with a comprehensive answer that is practical, I'm game. But this is what the left does. They bitch and moan nonstop about everything on the planet, but never solve anything. And they are great at making it worse. I prefer they touch nothing anywhere, ever.
It's still nonsensical when you think for a moment.
Think about it. If it's -100 degrees somewhere, and you increase the average temperature by 5 degrees, that somewhere is still -95 degrees, which is still 127 degrees below freezing. Ice doesn't melt anymore at 127 degrees below freezing than it does 132 degrees below freezing...
SUPER STUPID has history escaped your 74 year old MIND ???????????
The deadliest natural disaster in American history remains the 1900 hurricane in the island city of Galveston, Texas. On September 8, a category four hurricane descended on the town, destroying more than 3,600 buildings with winds surpassing 135 miles per hour.
Estimates of the death toll range from 6,000 to 12,000, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
Was CLIMATE CHAOS the cause of that STORM ??????????????
Yes. That would be the optimal temperature for the slow death of the human race (and a LOT of other races). The oceans will turn green (forget about a lobster dinner ;-), trees will die, crops will wither, storms will be REALLY severe, but, that's all "scientific stuff". God will save U.S. all. ;-)
Here is what the IDIOT wrote - Yes. That would be the optimal temperature for the slow death of the human race (and a LOT of other races). The oceans will turn green (forget about a lobster dinner ;-), trees will die, crops will wither, storms will be REALLY severe, but, that's all "scientific stuff".
Hey IDIOT you have no proof for your SCORCHED EARTH , APOCALYPTIC VIEW but go ahead and live in your FEAR ! IDIOT do you have a SAFE SPACE to hide in ?
The deadliest natural disaster in American history remains the 1900 hurricane in the island city of Galveston, Texas. On September 8, a category four hurricane descended on the town, destroying more than 3,600 buildings with winds surpassing 135 miles per hour.
Estimates of the death toll range from 6,000 to 12,000, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
Was the DEADLIEST HURRICANE in history because of CLIMATE CHANGE there AL ??????
There have always been random apocalyptic weather tragedies. Constant, yearly catastrophic weather that breaks records every year is climate change.
It's kind of like a person may have a nervous breakdown and act weird, but that doesn't mean they're bat-shit crazy. When one gets worse every year, like you, they ARE bat-shit crazy … catastrophically! ;-)
