CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
29
Global Warming No Energy
Debate Score:66
Arguments:42
Total Votes:77
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Global Warming (18)
 
 No Energy (21)

Debate Creator

wondo0802(17) pic



Which is Worse, Global Warming or No Energy?

To meet the proposed CO2 limits, we'll need to use less energy per person than did the Pilgrims. This means no air conditioners, no heaters, no cars, and no computers. Is this better or worse than the expected effects of a rise in temperature of 0.5 Deg C

Global Warming

Side Score: 37
VS.

No Energy

Side Score: 29
3 points

EVERYTHING IS COMPOSED OF ENERGY AND WAS MADE BY ENERGY.

THE UNIVERSE IS ENERGY! EVERYTHING!

NO ENERGY= NO US! IT= NO YOU!

So since there would be NOTHING then there would be no one to submit the subjectivity of "worse". So Global Warming is the worse by default.

Side: Global Warming
2 points

This one ends with irreversible processes. The other one is a temporary problem, which could be fixed. All we need is to wake up and realize that we have sufficient amounts of sustainable energy forms that are left unharvested.

Side: Global Warming
bobbyjohn(44) Disputed
1 point

Yes lets harvest the other forms of energy but why do that when oil and other forms of non renewable sources are still here? because they will go away? Where's the incentive to care about a future where we present humans no longer exist?

Side: No Energy
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
2 points

Because I care about people and I don't care about short term pleasures.

Side: Global Warming
2 points

Global Warming= No Energy.

No Energy= No Global Warming.

Side: Global Warming
3 points

Sooooo...... was it energy that caused global warming after the last ice age?

Side: Global Warming
Jungelson(3959) Disputed
1 point

Nope, that was natural. The earth does that. However, mankind is increasing the changes. Global warming is a natural occurrence, as is global cooling. However, because of humans, the earth is heating up too much, thus the ice at the north pole is melting faster than the new snow can build up on it. That is not meant to happen.

Side: No Energy
Nebeling(1117) Clarified
1 point

You just said that global warming = no global warming, you know.

Side: Global Warming
Jungelson(3959) Disputed
1 point

No I didn't. If global warming occurs, then there will be no use of energy, because everyone will be dead. If people now stop using such large amounts of energy, then there will be no global warming, and we all live happily.

Side: No Energy
2 points

Global warming is an issue that affects literally everything on the planet, including humanity. No energy, technically only means, no energy we can use.

In the end, there will be no energy, when humans are dead and gone, but life will still thrive, and we will be forgotten as if we were just a one hit wonder.

Side: Global Warming
1 point

global warming is better than having no energy beause if there is no energy then we cannot be alive..

Side: Global Warming
2 points

Global Warming is not to impact us but future generations. Where is the incentive to care about future generations of humans when i plan to have no children? I want to worry about the life i have now with the family i have now. so having no energy is worse.

Side: No Energy
sauh(1106) Disputed
1 point

That is a fairly egocentric/assholic perspective to have. That is similar to saying; I am clever enough to kill your whole family without being caught, and if that makes my life better at the present, it is all good.

Side: Global Warming
bobbyjohn(44) Disputed
1 point

umm I guess I kinda see where your coming from on how what I said is similar to what you said. I like how you judged my perspective :) So are you saying countries that do not approve of greener improvements to their countries are egocentric? The countries do not want more greener solutions because it will negatively impact the present citizens jobs and other aspects about their lives. The countries are caring about the present people. What do you have to say about that? are they being egocentric? hmmm?

Side: No Energy
2 points

Which proposals are you talking about?? Please provide a link.

Side: No Energy
1 point

Since Global Warming is bulls@#% anyway.

Side: No Energy
Nebeling(1117) Disputed
1 point

Says who? The scientific community sure doesn't. You probably heard this from somebody who hasn't even looked at the evidence.

Side: Global Warming
Stickers(1037) Disputed
3 points

No one is denying that the planet would be getting warmer if we never came across fossil fuels, since we had been in a mini ice age from 1350-ish to 1850-ish. I think that the most important thing to remember is even the most aggrandized and ridiculous figures only point to the planet warming a few degrees over the next century; we just won't be using fossil fuels by then.

Global warming is not a myth, it's just not worth worrying over.

Side: No Energy
1 point

I'm not convinced that human involvement is at the levels I've read, but I find the idea of someone ruling it out entirely unsupportable, I look forward to reading this debate.

Side: Global Warming
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

It's been disproved. Grant it, there are some things we do that might warm the Earth in certain regions, but obviously, temperature across the Earth alone shows the Earth warms up every few years, then cools back down.

Global Qarming is actually natural and it's not man made. It's called, "feed your eyes". Organizations give you statistics that might be bias or correct. But it's not the whole picture you see. In the end, it's all about money.

Side: No Energy
1 point

uhhhh... NO ENERGY... how am I supposed to make coffee in the morning.

Side: No Energy
1 point

People can die with no energy. Global warming is just a over hyped theory.

Side: No Energy
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Millions of life forms on this planet, nut just humanity can die, with global warming.

And for the record both of these are just theories, the issue is, if these theories were the actual case, which of these would negatively impact the world more. The answer is obviously global warming.

Side: Global Warming
1 point

What a false choice. This is one of the reasons we are moving so slowly on this issue. Special interests and the media have done such a great job at convincing people that to move to a low-carbon economy (one where we are emitting very little global warming pollution), we have to use less energy, which in turn means turning our lifestyles upside down. Such a false choice.

The problem with seeing how we address climate change in that way is that it blinds us. We only get to see one bad path vs. another bad path, instead of one bad path vs. a very good path.

The fact is that we are creative beings. We've come this far in creating an amazing society, and there's no question that if we've invented computers, the Internet, iphones, drones, and more, we can't figure out how to tap the energy of the sun, the wind, and the Earth. There's no way we can't figure out how NOT to waste two-thirds of our energy because of inefficient appliances, machines, distribution lines, and technologies.

The very good path involves figuring out all that, and in the process creating countless jobs, making energy even cheaper, and our towns and cities even cleaner. Wouldn't that be beautiful? I wrote a piece describing exactly what that could look like, and why we ought to be talking in these terms instead: http://room4debate.com/debate/climate-change-isnt-an-emergency. I hope it's useful to those who only like to see the negative sides of things.

Supporting Evidence: Climate Change Isn't An Emergency (room4debate.com)
Side: No Energy