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.
Florida has not been hit by a Hurricane in 10 years! That is a record! Global warming?
Remember how the Global warming activists who changed their names to climate change activists(after the globe stopped warming) told us of many many more hurricanes hitting the East Coast because of climate change?
Silence! No tak about why we have now had a record 10 years without a hurricane in Florida. The previous longest streak was 5 years back in the 80's.
Talk about deniers of the facts! Extremists with their agendas could care less the evidence. They are activist environmentalists with an agenda. Pure and simple!
Global warming stopped??? This year is already the warmest year on record. What about record droughts? Record floods? Record snowfall in places that rarely get snow? record forest fires? EVERY YEAR LATELY! By the way, record snowfalls are around the coast, mostly, because the storms go out over the warmer seas, intensify, and return to land....sort of a winter hurricane! By the way...Like beer? Be prepared to pay through the nose, the fires in Washington and the Northwest are wiping out the Hops crop. Like Bourbon? The drought and floods in the mid and southwest are wiping out the corn crop.
Ya'know what? It just seems intelligent to me to do whatever it takes to cut pollution, whether you think it causes "global warming" or not! But then, those who reject the evidence....as instructed by the conservative media and corporate interests....don't seem to pay much attention to "intelligence".
Funny, that same group seem to think they have a direct line to "god". Wonder what HE thinks of people who care more for their money, than for his "air breathing" creations and the world HE created for them to live in!
Florida has been lucky, to an extent, Many Floridians live off the sea, either directly or indirectly. When it becomes a puddle of warm water algae, they'll wish they had a few more hurricanes!
LOL, the God that created the universe could not protect this planet from polution? Use your brain before you spew such nonsense.
Conservatives don't want to pay for your theories which most times are proven wrong. You can play the idiot and blame any bad weather on your precious global warming theories.
Those who have lived through all of your sky is falling rhetoric over the decades know it is all politics just as your gun control drivel is pure politics.
Conservatives and Christians have the humanity to care for all innocent life. You and your Liberal fools support KILLING even late term babies and selling their organs.
Climate change will kill not only unborn babies, but their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. Again, I will refer you to NASA.Gov/JPL Labs. You may call me a fool, but, you must be calling all those learned scholars at those agencies "fools" also. I will err on the side of experts over conservative puppets who seem to live under the gods of Fox Nation any day. You enjoy your disillusionment. I hope you live long enough to explain to your grandkids how you allowed yourself to become so completely brainwashed, while they are trying to figure out how to breath and where to get THEIR babies out of the heat!
I've ived long enough to see your so called experts be completely wrong about globall cooling as they were sayig in the 70's until now where their models are constantly wrong about global warming. You will err on the side of political correctness which has nothing to do with science. It is mostly environmental politics from the Left.
You will be the one explaining to your kids and grandkids why our nation is bankrupt and that you elected the very socialists who bankrupted us all. They will be dieing from the heat because no one will be able to afford air conditioning.
I'm talking about the children your side allows to live when you don't abort them. You have no humanity but you pretend you do.
More empty rhetoric from you. You have no evidence again and as usual are factually deficient.
There was no global cooling consensus in the science in the 60s or 70's. Newsweek ran a story on the idea of global cooling and the media ran with it. This went against what the scientific consensus was shaping up to be. The scientific literature was dominated by global warming even then.
Here is a meta study that shows the majority of studies backed global warming and very few thought global cooling was in the future.
Here is factcheck.org discussing that the 70's global cooling was a media made myth not a scientific one. It also addresses your repeated false claim of no warming and agrees, your claim is false.
And here is the author of the newsweek global cooling article denouncing the article calling the media made global cooling myth "A distortion of science".
To hold the science of climate change responsible for poor journalism and gullible audiences is not a logical position. To continue this misrepresentation as you do you only reinforces the notion that you are getting your ideas from media representations and not the source material and that you favor your choice of media over the actual sources. The "global cooling" scare was a media induced claim not a scientific one.
I suggest getting science from science based sources if you wish to understand things better because media has a long history of misrepresenting science.
You know the one reason I do not post sites to prove my arguments is because most sites have bias and will cheery pick facts to prove any argument you want to make.
You will say the exact same thing I will say to you. These sites are biased and will cherry pick data.
I go by life and what I see. You can say the media is different from the science community and we are all suppose to discern where the claim originated from.
When I speak to the constant rhetoric and rants from the Left on so called Global warming, it is no different when they were ranting global cooling. They site SCIENCE as their data to prove their points, just as you are doing. So who should we believe this time when the Global warming stops, and after millions lose their jobs and our electric rates skyrocket.
You will say the exact same thing I will say to you. These sites are biased and will cherry pick data.
Incorrect. I have provided evidence showing why your data is cherry picked. I have shown your claim misrepresents the body of evidence by using a small subset of evidence to represent the majority of evidence despite the majority of evidence being vastly different than your representation.
I have shown that you are using strawmen arguments by attributing to science the statements made by the media. I have shown that those media claims run contrary to the scientific body of evidence.
These methods differs from what you are doing. I have addressed your methodology by showing your methods to be inaccurate and deficient, not just claiming them to be.
What you are doing is just making baseless claims. You use accusations instead of evidence. Show us where and why something is cherry picked.
Your inability to provide or even address evidence is indicative of your weak baseless stance. This shows a lack of integrity from you.
All I do is show the obvious facts without cherry picking biased articles.
FACTS - No hurricane for 10 years in Florida and southern east coast AFTER the so called experts told us we would have many more hurricanes on the east coast.
Facts - the global temperatures have hardly been rising at all for the past 20 years even though the so called experts predicted they would be rising at a much greater pace.
The state of global warming is not measured solely on Florida's climactic state because Florida isn't a decent measurement of the state of the globe. Your premise would be like saying "it is cold where I live so there is no global warming". To use such a small set of measures would be cherry picking.
Remember how the Global warming activists who changed their names to climate change activists(after the globe stopped warming) told us of many many more hurricanes hitting the East Coast because of climate change?
This is a three for one; First off who cares what activists are saying, quote some science if you are trying to address the science being faulty. You are attacking a strawman here;
The science hasn't taken a stand on whether there will be more hurricanes or not but do think that the strength of hurricanes could be increased in the future.
Second I can only think of how little the person knows of the science when they are confusing the terms global warming with climate change. That is because in the sciences the two terms refer to two different things;
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
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.
The media has trouble telling the two terms apart and the media has been a poor communicator for the sciences. I suggest getting your science from the source not somebody posing as a journalist.
Third; I would love for you to try to show that global warming has stopped. I have seen a few claims of this but they all fail the integrity test. Some people try to use the upper air atmosphere temperature to show a slowdown but that is again cherry picking. Over 90% of global warming goes into the oceans but only a few percent goes into the upper air atmosphere. To ignore the gains over the majority of the global changes is not academically honest. Of course there has been gains on surface temperatures too.
Again, the "globe" has NOT stopped warming. The name Climate Change covers far more than just the warming, which seemed to not resonate with small minded people who stuck their nose out the window and said..."IT'S COLD out there! Most of those small minded people still didn't get the point. It isn't all happening in their back yard! That is why "they" started calling it "climate change" NOT because it "stopped warming". (Well, everywhere but in the FOX Nation) It is GLOBAL, and this year, as was last, as was also 2007, the warmest years on record!, This century, so far, has been the warmest EVER on record. so, go stick your nose out in your back yard, if you must. The message will soon get to you, and it will be clear.
??It appears as if you addressed your response to the wrong person.
Also check out the educational link I posted above from NASA, that will help clear up any confusion you have over the terms "global warming" and "climate change".
It has always been a cause and effect argument since the inception of the idea. Changes in average global temperature can result in changes in climate. The terms refer to two specific phenomenon and as such are not interchangeable.
The Global warming larmists constntly cherry pick their data.
Floridais the main arear tat gets hit with hurricanes on a regular bases. It had been in the 80's the last time they even went 5 yers without a hurricane. They are the perfect place to show yet again another failed model from the global warming alarmists.
Global warming was the name the scientists and politicians were using until the globe stopped warming and then they changed the name to climate change.
It's amazing how quick you forget the facts to make yourself right.
The Global warming larmists constntly cherry pick their data.
Do they? If so, can you point to where, how you know, and what evidence is not being presented? Also, how does this invalidate the data they are presenting?
They are the perfect place to show yet again another failed model from the global warming alarmists.
If you want to make this point legitimate, can you give an example of the failed model? If you could provide evidence of what you're complaining about, it would make you seem much more legitimate.
Global warming was the name the scientists and politicians were using until the globe stopped warming and then they changed the name to climate change.
The globe is absolutely still warming. Also, there is plenty of evidence for climate change. And plenty of evidence that it is man-made. I could present thousands of reliable sources. Seriously.
Your argument is just baseless accusations. Without any warrants I see no reason to take your position as an honest attempt at discourse. Without the introduction of new evidence, your repetition of premises that were found lacking only strengthens the notion that you are not here to debate in good faith. I assure you your premises are still factually deficient as they were the first time you spouted them.
You should read the NASA link I posted for you, it explains the only name change was in the 50's, from "inadvertent climate modification" to "climate change" in the 70's. It has always been a cause and effect argument that changes in average global temperature can result in climate change.
The only way one can maintain this charade you present is with the help of will full ignorance. As in the past, I currently find our exchanges to be rather disappointing. You may have the last word.
Um.....LOL..... it's so nice with the new name "Climate Change". ANY weather can be blamed on Climate change! THEY WERE TELLING US ALL THAT WE WOULD HAVE FAR MORE HURRICANES ON THE EAST COAST 10 YEARS AGO! What happened?
Guess what, we've had NONE! Now they say that no hurricanes is evidence of climate change. These people are corrupt lying fools! They will say anything to make themselves out right.
Do you deniers even believe the words coming out of your mouths?
climate change can refer to any major deviation to a norm. it is effectively saying the norm is changing, which is a fairly rational conclusion.
i think your problem with this is you're seeing this as a conflict between people against an organisation claiming something to be true which we should conform to (sound familiar?), rather than a group of people reporting evidence and drawing likely conclusions.
My problem is a bunch of enviromental activists using Climate to scare people to get their draconian environmental laws passed so that all our electric bills will nesccesarily go up according to Obama and everyone else.
My problem being is that they keep changing their toon.
They first called it Global warming until so many of their models failed and our tempertures have risen VERY little over the past two decades. So they changed the name to Climate Change which basically covers any bad weather, any good weather, or basically anything they want it to be.
Their models have been wrong so many times. They told us the warming oceans would cause many more hurricanes on the east coast. WHAT HAPPENED?
They can not figure out why the Anarctic has record amounts of ice forming. So rather than admitting how many times their models are wrong, they keep trying to come up with explanations why their failed models did not come true.
So we are suppose to accept these so called experts when their theories are used to make new enviromental laws that will raise our eectricty bills?
is it your expert opinion that the observations observed did not happen? do they not indicate anything at all? or do you just not like it or their repercussions?
i can understand people abusing information to get power can be frustrating, but that does not mean that information does not exist or is necessarily unreliable.
Their models have been wrong so many times. They told us the warming oceans would cause many more hurricanes on the east coast. WHAT HAPPENED?
the models were based on premises such as temperatures increase and ice caps melt etc. it turned out that weather patterns were more complicated than that and the premises became false/not enough information to produce a true conclusion, which is why they were wrong.
They can not figure out why the Antarctic has record amounts of ice forming.
people telling you the most likely of visible projections being wrong surprises and displeases you? would you rather they told you something less likely? also, for the record, the arctic ice has been retreating, the media just thinks reporting people being wrong creates a larger uproar than reporting people being right. truth is both statements are true.
rather than admitting how many times their models are wrong, they keep trying to come up with explanations why their failed models did not come true.
that is the nature of scientific theory. people make guesses based on the data and then experiments are conducted to prove and disprove as many of these as possible. what makes weather much more difficult is that they barely operate scientific theories, as they cannot easily collect evidence to disprove suggestions until after the prediction actually occurs.
new environmental laws that will raise our electricity bills?
your electricity bills rising is inevitable. in the near future we will run out of gas and oil followed by coal. before that happens networks of renewable energy must be set up and materials that do not rely on oil must be manufactured. fission is a brilliant transitional source and fusion, if possible could be the answer to our energy problems. but it could take at least 50-80 years to be commercially viable and oil is projected to be an unsustainable in around 40 years. then we have exponential population growth and consequent demand. until fusion or some other solution emerges you're going to have to suck it up and pay for more expensive energy.
on top of that, climate change is a reality. unless you want to pay for more than just your electric bills something should be done to prevent it, rather than merely halting some of the things we do that advocate it. otherwise in the future we could be paying obscenely high bills just to preserve a contained environment we can survive in.
:)
until you stop using capitals for no reason, i'll not acknowledge any meaning behind this smiley face
Here it is in a nut shell. Everyone has their own beliefs and ideology to what is important in life. Those on left have always been environmentalists. I have no problem with their passions for our environment unless it is purely theory and would have huge impacts on our electric costs, our jobs, etc., all to further their passions. I agree with some of their efforts whether it be controlling polution going into our waterways, etc.
The problem with people on the Left is they never know when to stop. Using theories of Climate to push their anti fossil fuel crusade (which has been going on long before this climate change crusade). This is wrong especially when scientists don't even know if cutting our carbon emissions will prevent what they call climate change or if it is mainly naturally occuring in nature.
They have no proof but because of their passions to cut fossil fuels, they will use anything to push through their agendas and I have lived long enough to see how most of it is pure politics. Big money coming into the Democrat pockets from environmental groups.
Now when it comes to people such as myself, our passions whether it be gun rights, religious freedoms, the right to life, cutting the enormous debt, the right to disagree without private family owned businesses being forced to cater things that goes against their faith, or churches being forced to hire Gay Sunday school teachers etc., are some of the things people on your side refuse to respect or accept. We believe our passions seem pretty much common sense but people on the Left refuse to accept it. Deniers?
People on the Left don't like guns and are willing to force new laws becuase of their fear of guns, no matter if the evidence goes against their claims. One example being that the cities with the toughest gun laws have the most gun violence. It's all politics and the facts never get in the way of their agenda.
This is why the Right distrusts many things from the Left. Your ideology superceeds common sense when it comes to guns, abortion, our 18 trillion debt, freedom to disagree, etc.
So you see, we on the Right do not trust a word out of the Left's mouth. Maybe there is some truth to man made climate change, no one knows for sure, but what I do know is that the Left can not be trusted. They live and breathe their ideology no matter whose freedoms they must trample.
So there you have it, we don't agree and our own personal passions will be battles we continue to fight.
you said the arctic has record breaking ice and that that was something global warming was said not to allow. your link says the antarctic ice is growing while the arctic ice is gradually shrinking slightly more than usual
Strange, you must have a different NASA.Gov than I do.
When I go to mine I see: 2005; "Continued Sea Ice decline. 2007; Record Arctic sea ice loss; 2008Arctic sea ice down to second lowest record. 2009: Amount of Arctic "old ice" hits record low.
A graph shows that since 2000, to 2015, the Arctic ice cover has shrunk from about 6.2 million sq/mi to about 4 million sq/mi.
In the Antarctic, the surface ice has expanded and is reaching warmer waters where it melts faster, it is also thinner. The "old ice", that over land, is thinning rapidly. This gives a "satellite illusion" that there is MORE ice here, but, an illusion is an illusion! If you have info that makes THIS report an "illusion" I wish you would direct me to it, then maybe I could smile!
How many times will people such as yourself call me a Liberal. I am pro life and would outlaw abortons unless Life of mother situations which are extremely rare and with modern medicine not even needed, I believe in the freedom and right of a community to choose a school prayer if they want(with no child forced to pray), I am against new gun control laws that would do nothing to save lives, I don't believe most of the Global warming rhetoric as being blamed on man's carbon emissions, I am for voter ID, I am for deporting illegal immigrants unless they were born here many years ago, I'm for school choice, I would allow tax payers to use their own school taxes towards their school of choice, I'm against Gay marriage, I'm for workfare and forcing people off welfare if they have not found a job in 5 years, I would make able bodied people stand in food bank lines for their food rather than the easy food stamps that can be traded for alcohol, drugs, casino's, etc., I would make welfre recipients do community work to reduce our property taxes, etc.
I could go on but does that fit into a Liberal ideology?
Well son of a gun, I guess I could have perspectives that are completely wrong, but I try to stick to the truth and if I am proven wrong will admit it.
How many times will people such as yourself call me a Liberal. I am pro life and would outlaw abortons unless Life of mother situations which are extremely rare and with modern medicine not even needed, I believe in the freedom and right of a community to choose a school prayer if they want(with no child forced to pray), I am against new gun control laws that would do nothing to save lives, I don't believe most of the Global warming rhetoric as being blamed on man's carbon emissions, I am for voter ID, I am for deporting illegal immigrants unless they were born here many years ago, I'm for school choice, I would allow tax payers to use their own school taxes towards their school of choice, I'm against Gay marriage, I'm for workfare and forcing people off welfare if they have not found a job in 5 years, I would make able bodied people stand in food bank lines for their food rather than the easy food stamps that can be traded for alcohol, drugs, casino's, etc., I would make welfre recipients do community work to reduce our property taxes, etc.
I could go on but does that fit into a Liberal ideology?
Liberalism means being lenient towards other perspectives. It means you can tolerate other people. Are you saying that you're stubborn and think that everyone else is wrong but you? Are you aware of how crazy that makes you appear? Are you aware of how arrogant you are?
Are you aware you are a total mindess idiot for calling me a Liberal? Liberal's are the absolute most arrogant people on this planet. They believe that they are the enlightened ones who will force us all to bow to their ideoogy. They believe they have the arrogant right to redistribute our money. They will try to ban our guns and censor our public from any religious expression.
They even have the inhumanity to force us to pay for abortions. They are truly sick extremists.
Yes I am aware that I'm a total mindless idiot, but not for the reason you assume.
Liberal's are the absolute most arrogant people on this planet.
Didn't you just call me dumb for calling you a liberal? And now you're calling yourself one? Why can't I call you a liberal, but you can refer to yourself as such? You really are arrogant.
You're being hypocritical. You're trying to force your ideologies on to people too.
