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.
A week or so ago, Trump made a similarly dumb comment when he said the East coast needed a little of that "global warming" which HE thought was clever. He was stupid enough to NOT know that that area was THE ONLY AREA ON THE GLOBE that was below normal temp ... including the Arctic and Siberia!
That "global warming shit" will be "playing on you" soon enough. I will likely not be around for the worst part, but, I hope YOU (and maybe your children) enjoy the "warmth" you deny today. Good luck.
I would point out that, while snow fell in the Sahara, South Africa knows it is running out of water after the longest drought in history. Their cities WILL die ... followed by more everywhere ... "global warming shit"...! While a disease is running through America's right wing (30%), .... a blindness in one eye while loosing sight in the other ..., the REST of the world is worrying! (And scientists are well paid in most cases, 97% of them do NOT need to act like greedy capitalists as Tsar Pepe insinuated below!
Scientists agree that since the 1800s, if those records are at all reliable and consistent with methods and records of today, the average Earthly temperature has risen one whole degree.
Al, I assume since you are so concerned about this that you are sending in all of your extra money to "the fund" to save the planet. If you are still working, how about you work two or three jobs and send all that extra money also. This climate change thing for you is very serious, so I am assuming you are living in a small, run down apartment so all of your money can go to save the planet. If not, I question how much you actually believe it. I mean, what can be more important to you alarmists than saving 7 billion people. Giving up your free time and financial security has to outweigh the certain destruction of the planet, does it not?
I have to hang on to my "extra money" so that when "Obamacare" collapses I can cover my medical bills ... somewhat.. and leave some "extra money" to support my wife when I'm gone. I'm not still working. I put in over 60 years of work, rarely working a 40 hour week. Mine were more from 56 hours to around a hundred, probably averaged about 60. No time for 2 or 3 extra jobs.
This "climate change thing" for me, and millions of others around the world ... almost everyone that isn't an American, hard line conservative. No, I live in a VERY neat, (thanks to my wife), downsized home to stretch our money for a few more years. I DO send some money to save the planet (from those hard line conservatives), but, at 81 (in a few weeks) i find it difficult to do more than recycle and conserve. What SHOULD be more important to YOU is saving the planet for your children, brothers, sisters and those children you save from abortion, but, then, Once they're through the birth canal they are on their own, right? (Right ... no pun intended) ;-). No. I've done what I could, WHEN I could. Now, I have to worry about my wife. What you do with the planet is on YOU and your kind. Those that only look out for themselves, screw anyone else. MOST of them live in shithole countries, anyway ... "RIGHT?" (pun intended).
Crazy Al of Road Island does your state in which you live not need fossil fuel ? It surely does and we have been through this before. You Yanks would freeze in the dark without it.
If you and the state you inhabit want to save the planet then cut off the fossil fuel you need and depend on the green energy to keep the residents of your state warm in the winter and let's see how well that works out for you.
Trump made a similarly dumb comment when he said the East coast needed a little of that "global warming" which HE thought was clever.
I have noticed that the (modern conservative) idiot is usually the very last person on Earth to discover that he/she is an idiot. Given some of Trump's Tweets it appears that he believes intelligence is a matter of (his own) opinion.
Most people accept that climate change is real though it is discussed if it is caused by human activity or not. But in any case, even if it was totally false wouldnt it be good to pollute less?
The issue is not whether humans affect our environment, but rather, that a bunch of elected con artist and immoral scientists were caught red handed lying. Remember climate gate? Documented proof that a conspiracy to manipulate data in such a way to show warming is caused by us lowly carbon dioxide exhaling bunch of revenue generators. Putting aside the fact that a warmer earth is more conducive for life to flourish and the push for a global carbon tax the real goal, it's just plain nonsensical to think that taxing is a solution. How about every time a corporation has a spill or leak or accident they be made to plug up a volcano.
Remember climate gate? Documented proof that a conspiracy
I don't spend much time in right wing anti science echo chambers that push politically motivated conspiracy theories so no I've never heard of "climate gate"
Putting aside the fact that a warmer earth is more conducive for life to flourish
First of all it depends how warm your talking and second it depends which parts of the planet, some could stand to be warmer, some maybe a little cooler, others are fine right where they are. Climate change isn't going to just conveniently warm up the places that are too cold, cool down the places that are too hot and leave everything else as is. It's going to fuck up the whole ecosystem if we let it get out of hand.
global carbon tax the real goal,
No one is pushing for a carbon tax, that's just theoretical.
How about every time a corporation has a spill or leak or accident they be made to plug up a volcano.
I don't spend much time in right wing anti science echo chambers that push politically motivated conspiracy theories so no I've never heard of "climate gate"
The climate scientist email scandal was pretty big mainstream news back in 2009 or 2010 when it happened.
I think that rapid advancement in commonly available advanced technology should tell us that.
Look, engineers and people who wear lab coats need to make a buck somehow. Sometimes you gotta build a really big calculator. A really big and expensive calculator. For science! For the future!
Science is just a scam to make money eh? Christianity fits that description too.
Look, priests and people who wear robes need to make a buck somehow. Sometimes you gotta build a really big church. A really big and expensive church. For skyman! For your eternal soul!
You've intentionally used a misleading blanket statement. If a "scientific" study showed that liberalism was caused by a form of mental retardation, and you didn't simply accept it, that wouldn't make you "anti-science". It would mean you weren't fooled by an obviously politically motivated claim.
If a "scientific" study showed that liberalism was caused by a form of mental retardation, and you didn't simply accept it, that wouldn't make you "anti-science". It would mean you weren't fooled by an obviously politically motivated claim.
I appreciate that you called out one of the core reasons for skepticism. Thank you.
Obviously, the most basic reason for the scientific process (the acknowledgment for margins of error, etc.) is to weed out bias, and encourage reasoned skepticism in the interest of determining objective truth.
It amazes me that so many people who say they value the scientific process are so anti-science that they express outrage at reasoned skepticism, and make ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority.
You calling me "extremely stupid" does not make me what you say I am. You are not the determiner of who I am.
I never said science was a scam to make money.
Your mockery of me isn't legit, because it has nothing to do with me. Neither do these priests you talk about. Why should I care about that stuff? None of that has anything to do with Christianity. You don't understand the faith, you are superstitious.
You'd figure things out better if you abandoned your prejudice.
You saying you're not "extremely stupid" does not make you not what I say you are. You are not the determiner of what you're not.
You said science was a scam to make money.
You make a legitimate mockery of yourself, because it has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the supreme and ultimate truth that you are a fallacious twit. Why should I care about that stuff? None of that has anything to do with Climate science. You don't understand the facts, you are superstitious because you think not being superstitious is superstitious.
You'd figure things out better if you abandoned your brain and inserted a ball of cobwebs into your skull.
Definition of "climate" courtesy Merriam-Webster..
"the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation"
It makes sense that this changes over time. I don't see the fuss.
We know climate change is real; it has been going on non-stop for billions of years.
We also know that there is no evidence that climate change is actually anthropogenic, so pardon us for ignoring folks like Al Gore and Leonardo Dicaprio (who deny science and the scientific method in favor of private jets and marketing campaigns for get rich quick schemes like selling carbon credits.)
We know climate change is real; it has been going on non-stop for billions of years.
We know that man made climate change is real because 97 percent of scientists who study climate have told us this is what the scientific research indicates is happening.
But you just go right on ahead and keep deliberately misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying. No problem.
Geologists estimate that about 90% of the Earth’s crust is made up of silicates—quartz, clays, and zeolites are among the very large number of complex mineral structures … Exposure of the silicates to CO2 in Earth’s humid atmosphere leads to the weathering reaction shown in the diagram.
This conversation is being impeded by the fact that you are mad.
No, the conversation is being impeded by you not always knowing what you are writing about.
For example, you wrote, "Geologists study rocks. "
The root geo means earth. Geologists study the earth and how it changes over time.
Geological study also includes study of the history of life and living conditions on the earth, as revealed in the fossil record.
Geological study includes atmospheric content and conditions as revealed in the geologic record.
Geological study also includes the effects of volcanism, and the content and effects of volcanic eruptions, including the release of massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Geological study also includes the study of global climate over time as revealed in the geologic record through fossil evidence and evidence of glaciation.
Geological study also includes the effects of both tectonic activity and glaciation on what land is or is not below sea level, and whether and when it has been in the past.
Geological study also includes study of past rates of these changes, as revealed in the geologic record.
Geological study also includes study of both internal and external factors that impact the conditions and processes of the earth, including rates of change.
We know that man made climate change is real because 97 percent of scientists who study climate have told us this is what the scientific research indicates is happening.
The problem is that the research has produced shallow data sets, and is run through computer models that do not account for major factors like cloud cover, solar energy variation. The margins of error on a lot of it are prohibitive of reaching reasonable and reliable conclusions because the margins of error are greater than the hypothesized effects of known human CO2 production.
Flawed Climate Models by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper provides a clear explanation of why the 97 percent of climate scientists are unjustified in making the claim that science proves climate change is anthropogenic.
The problem is that the research has produced shallow data sets
But that's simply bullshit pseudo-terminology you've conjured up to create the false impression that there is a problem. If there was a problem then there wouldn't be a 97 percent expert consensus on the matter in the first place. I doubt there is even a 97 percent scientific consensus about general relativity, so your pompous terminology does not define a problem to anybody except yourself and/or those mad enough to take you seriously.
Flawed Climate Models by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper provides a clear explanation of why the 97 percent of climate scientists are unjustified
NASA thinks it is justified:-
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
As regards the source you posted, a quick Google search of the authors reveals that David R Henderson is an ECONOMIST, with no qualifications whatsoever in relation to climate study, and Charles L. Hooper is President of Objective Insights, a private sector consulting company for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry!!! Neither one of these men has a single qualification in what they are writing about!! The only thing they demonstrably have is a conflict of interest!!!!
If there was a problem then there wouldn't be a 97 percent expert consensus on the matter in the first place
Consensus on what? That climate change is real? That the average temperature has risen since the 1800s one whole degree? (As if we even know if records from the 1800s are consistant with today's methods...)
I gave you an official statement from NASA and you responded by posting an article called "Flawed Climate Models" by two men who do not have a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATION BETWEEN THEM.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Official statement from 18 different top scientific associations:-
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
I underlined the critical language that shows that NASA recognizes that 97% of climate scientists have agreed on the hypothesis. Extremely likely indicates the hypothesis is unproven despite the expectation that it will be proven at some point.
You know damned well that formulating a hypothesis is not demonstrating a conclusion. They have made it only halfway through the scientific process. The next step is to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
The 97% are unjustified in pretending that an unproven hypothesis is the same as a proven one. You are equally unjustified in this pretense.
David R Henderson is an ECONOMIST, with no qualifications whatsoever in relation to climate study
So....
Is your contention that economists, who deal largely with statistical models and evaluation of data and the associated effects of margins of error on the validity of resulting conclusions, are unqualified to complete simple mathematical operations like subtracting the absolute value of margins of error from the effect of a process (which was calculated by climatologists)?
It is a basic operation of third grade arithmetic for Christ's sake!
The paper simply explains how the hypothesis remains neither proven nor disproven because the data is not sufficient to account for the impact of the margins of uncertainty that result from known confounding variables.
That is not denying science. That is actually DOING science.
What is so horrible about recognizing that the hypothesis remains unproven?
You are not denying scientific data.
You are denying the validity of the scientific process.
What is next?
Are you going to insist that flogiston is released during combustion, and that illness is caused by imbalance in the humors?
I do not deny that the climate is changing. I do not even deny that human activity affects the environment.
All I deny is that the hypothesis has been proven that climate change is anthropogenic.
Nobody is suggesting that it is 100% anthropogenic, rather it is influenced by human activity as a result of the Industrial Revolution and beyond to such an extent that it is influencing the "natural climatic state" off course
The 97 percent scientific consensus is not that "the climate is changing" you impossibly dishonest buffoon. The consensus is that "human activities" are causing the radical climate problems witnessed over the last century.
when I want to know the opinion of NASA I will ask NASA, not a pathetic global warming denier who wants to misrepresent NASA.
Learn the language.
1-I have plainly stated that I do not deny that the climate is changing multiple times. Apparently, you do not understand what you read well enough to understand those plain statements.
2-The word likely means not certain, plainly indicating in this context that the proposition has not been proven. In science, an unproven proposition is called a hypothesis.
None of these are fancy words, but their meanings seem to have escaped you.
Again, do yourself a favor; learn to read and understand English better.
Sooooo, every country in the world, except 3, that agree with the findings (Syria, American conservatives and some "shithole African country", do not), are being buried in "liberal horseshit" and "shallow data sets." Amazing how 30% of America and those other two countries has YUGE intelligence over the rest of the world! (Must all be related to that "stable genius" who certainly knows his horseshit!)
Maybe the "facts" may be somewhat incorrect, maybe not. Intelligent people err on the side of caution when human life is concerned, actually ALL life is concerned. Only those who don't give a damn for anything but themselves. You have a good day.
Sane and well-meaning people with an understanding of the scientific process can point out that nobody has proven the hypothesis that human activity has caused the current changes in climate.
To pretend that an unproven hypothesis counts as knowledge is to deny science and the scientific process.
It is a valuable thing that people require completion of the scientific process (by proving or disproving the hypothesis.)
Sure, 97% of climate scientists expect the hypothesis to be supported.
So what?
3% of climate scientists disagree.
So what?
Knowledge is not determined by democratic processes.
If there had been a vote in 1700 about whether disease is caused by microscopic organisms, imbalanced humors, or witchcraft, the overwhelming loser would have been microscopic organisms. That would not have made it true. More than a century of work was required to complete the scientific process.
People, both those who believe and those who disbelieve that climate change is anthropogenic, have to go through the work (accounting for other explanations, confounding variables, uncertainty and margins of error, etc.) to prove or disprove the hypotheses.
Actual science depends on reasoned skepticism.
Don' just pretend the hypothesis has been proven. That is unscientific.
Try getting on board with completing the scientific process.
Otherwise, you are just pretending a guess is the same as knowledge.
