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.
Is global warming really bad or is it actually good?
Well, all of us have been fed that global warming is bad, but new research and theories such as the gaia theory may show that it is not as bad as they say.
The use of the word "even" indicates that there are other pieces of evidence that suggest you are an idot, and the laughing is just another thing added on. But, you hate knowing English, so you will deny this as well.
You have never once pointed out anything wrong with my criticism of you
It is the post directly after the criticism.
Again, that isn't the evidence that you are an idiot.
That's not what I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against your statement that implies that there is a laugh specific to idiots. Your statement, " You even laugh like an idiot.", implies that their is a laugh which is specific to idiots and that you are likening my laugh, to that of an idiot's.
Your WATER bill will be higher than your heating bill, (if you can get any at all!) Your food bill (from drought and fires) will be higher yet! Forget eating fish.
You definitely must be joking. Here in Ireland it rains every day to a greater or lesser extent, well we do get the occasional dry day, I think, yes there was a day in July 2005 when it didn't rain, much. It's either raining, just stopped raining or just about to rain. One potentially good feature of this alleged global warming is that we may be able to export our pure Irish water by the tanker full or pipe it to those countries which are experiencing drought. Ireland's prime industry is farming and we are totally self sufficient, and indeed have a substantial surplus in all forms of food including, cereal crops, dairy and beef cattle, a wide range of vegetables and poultry.
It can be good for some people. It depends on their geographical location. As well as other factors.
For example. Guess who is very likely to greatly prosper from Global Warming? That is, if the cycle continues. (And that is ALL it is: a cycle. ALL things in nature are cyclical.)
Russia!
LOL.
Yep. Ya see, there has for centuries been a perma-frost over the vast expanse of Siberia. So, even though under that ground is a treasure of fossil fuels and minerals, the Russians have been unable to mine it, due to the thick ice.
But it is now melting!! And many Climatologists surmise that if the warming trend continues as it has, that in a few more years all that wealth of oil and natural gas and ores--like gold!--will be ready for the picking by Russia.
Which, along with Comrade Putin's rabid nationalism and drive to make Russia a Global Super Power once again, could very well enable that nation to become a dominant Force.
Global warming is a win-win situation. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Global warming could help reduce the world's population. This could aleviate traffic congestion. If the world's population keeps on increasing, global warming will melt the ice caps at the poles. This creates more land for people to move to. See? Win-win.
I'm sorry but do you know why they don't want the ice caps to melt?
For one, it would actually reduce the amount of land, due to sea levels rising. Two, it would completely disrupt the system called the Gulf Stream, which is responsible for the recycling of sea water and the currents in the oceans and it has a much larger affect on the world than you think. Not to mention any of the effects caused by global warming on wildlife.
Please actually do some research before discussing matters like this.
Global warming is caused by people. Global warming will kill the peole. No more peole, no more global warming. Global wamng is good because global warmng fixes the global warming problem.
Well, global warming is not directly caused by people, but rather by what people have created/done, like drilling, cars, factories, deforestation, etc. And global warming won't kill us fast enough to stop us from escalating the problem until it is irreparable.
Global warming is releasing mega tons of previously frozen "swamp gas" into the atmosphere. Siberia is so much warmer that diseases which the cold normally kept under control is killing off their trees. It is also causing "town sized" explosions opening huge craters in the ground. The Russians are worried (at least the scientific ones). Many Americans are too stupid .... um, bad choice of words...Are under "perception modification" by certain factions (FOX Nation and the energy czars), to actually SEE what is, and CAN happen! To the rest of the world we look more like that "bad choice of words"!
Ice caps aren't covering up land underneath. It's just ice. When they melt, they just become water. Then water everywhere else gets higher. Which means less land. Which means overpopulation becomes more dire because there is less land to live on.
So why does the global scientific community, the overwhelming majority of which will not in any way benefit from said taxation, "push" this "false narrative"?
From widely varying sources, both private and public. Additionally, this would imply a rather hilarious amount of collaboration amongst the overwhelming majority of the scientific community to risk their entire collected legitimacy on money that isn't even currently at risk. That simply would not be logical of them, at all.
What is Climate Change about ? And how might Government fix it ? So how will Government will fix the Earth and Skies ? Who benefits from the false narrative of Climate Change ? Who ever mentioned the "Global Scientific Community" other than you ?
The Climate Changing, generally. Sarcasm aside, it is about human activity actively causing changes to the global climate.
And how might Government fix it?
There are a large variety of ideas of how it can be fixed, with differing levels of government involvement.
So how will Government will fix the Earth and Skies ?
See the previous sentence.
Who benefits from the false narrative of Climate Change ?
Everyone, whether it is false or not. Most of the actions proposed to help combat climate change are net positives no matter what: Improving environmental health, decreasing pollution in our air and water, reducing our dependence on non-renewable forms of energy, etc. None of those are bad things, regardless of one's political ideology.
Who ever mentioned the "Global Scientific Community" other than you
Nobody, but I fail to see how that is relevant. You claimed that Climate Change is a "false narrative" that is all about increasing taxation. The global scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes humanity influencing climate change as an issue, and yet they do not benefit from said tax increases. So I was wondering why said community would be "pushing" this "false narrative" if they have nothing to benefit from it.
LMMFAO ! "It can be fixed, with differing levels of government involvement." Government gets it money from where ?
Generally speaking taxes, of course. Depending on the country that could be done either with increased taxes or, better yet, reallocation of tax funds. Our government wastes so much money as is, might as well take much of that wasted money and put it towards something useful. Or, if one wanted to focus on a more market oriented solution, that money could go towards incentivizing programs that would help with mitigating climate change. Like I said, people have different opinions on the best ways to go about it, and not all of them require significant government involvement.
So we should reduce the "human activity actively causing changes to the global climate."?
Some people say yes, others say that is unrealistic and we should really on things such as geoengineering to offset our activity. While I would ideally say we should try to reduce the activity leading to the changes, I am of a mind that such chances are bordering on impossible, and would disproportionately harm the poor and developing nations, and thus I would put my money behind geoengineering.
How might we do that through "differing levels of government involvement."?
Well the totalitarian approach would be to outright ban the activity in question. A more market-oriented approach would be for the government to offer tax credits towards people who participate in certain programs, such as biking when possible, carpooling, buying energy efficient cars, etc. A more paternal but not totalitarian method might be to fine harmful behavior. Not saying I endorse any of these examples (and these are just examples, as the number of possible ideas people have come up with is huge), though I tend to believe that positive reinforcement works better than negative reinforcement, so I'd lean away from punishing and outlawing anything.
Geoengineering is a rather vague concept, in that it can be done in vastly different ways and for different reasons. I don't think geoengineering is some panacea, or that it is even the wisest idea, just that it may be the only feasible approach.
Well look here you are clear now -" A more paternal but not totalitarian method might be to fine harmful behavior." Fines are not taxation ?
Hmm, an interesting question. I decided to do a bit of research and the answer to the question is incredibly muddled, particularly after NIFB v Seleblius. If one goes with the wording of the majority opinion in that case, said fines would most likely be considered taxes. Philosophically I consider them different, but that wouldn't be a legally based opinion and therefore would be effectively irrelevant to the matter at hand.
So you agree in taxation to be used with Climate Change.
No, I do not. I think that is a possibility, but I have not at any point declared that I believe taxation should be used "with Climate Change".
You want to decrease human activity i got that !
Except I have explicitly stated that I do not believe that is possible, and thus my opinions on fighting climate change tend to revolve around other methods.
Well, you didn't give us an option that said "Global Warming is NOT Man-made but merely the current state of a perpetual Climatological Cycle." So I chose this option, thinking that it is "good" as compared with the gloom and doomers' opinion that it's man-made and will spell the end for us all. LOL.
And yeah, the warming trend is benefiting some countries, depending on their geography and economics. The nation that I believe right not stands to really reap some benefits from Warming is Russia. The Perma-Frost in Siberia has forever made it all but impossible to access the vast wealth of minerals and fossil fuels beneath it.
But if things continue the way they have been, weather-wise, it seems as if Russia will access a literal gold mine of goodies. Greatly aiding them in attaining Putin's agenda of becoming a World Power once again.