CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Voceangeli

Reward Points:3
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
60%
Arguments:3
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
3 most recent arguments.
0 points

You should actually read the peer reviewed literature on the subject, ALL of them state that the Earth has natural climate variability. There are a few things you need to know about science before having this debate.

1) There is a difference between empirical fact (like 'the Earth's temperature is increasing') and conclusions as to why where there is more than one cause ('90% is manmade, 10% is natural variability'). The second item is ideologically driven (just as it would be if a scientist argued that 10% was manmade), it's as close to guesswork as science is allowed. All the peer reviewed literature on the subject states that there is an unknown amount of natural variability.

2) Continuing the concept in (1), remember that scientists correctly found that Genetics plays a huge part in human health in the late 19th century, where scientists went wrong was the conclusions they drew ('if we don't stop minorities from reproducing, society will suffer'). The debate on global warming has reached this point, taking empirical concepts and giving them political agendas.

3) Keep in mind that when we talk about CO2, we're talking about about 385 ppm (parts per million), or .000385% of the atmosphere.

4) If people were really concerned they would curb meat production, not CO2. Methane contributes more greenhouse gases (by far) than CO2.

I don't doubt that the globe is warming, and it's possible if not likely that people have something to do with it. But spending billions or trillions of dollars on fixing a 'problem' when we don't know the extent of it is just a bad idea. That's money that could save lives if applied somewhere else. A perfect example would be biofuels. In the rush to 'save the Earth', millions of people have starved to DEATH (and millions more will still starve). To you, this is academic risk management, but there are real people who will die when people make the wrong decisions about this stuff.

2 points

There is no debate about whether or not the Earth is heating up. The question should be 'Does mankind have a serious effect on the global temperature?'

0 points

I would not. While Hitler was evil, we don't know that whoever history had replace him wouldn't have been more evil. Consider the scenario where his 'replacement' is simply more efficient and better at fighting wars, Germany could have conceivably won WWII. Would I want that on my conscience? The only exception would be if I knew the outcome of my choice.

Voceangeli has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here