Topic space view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • CON

    SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst...

    Climate change is both real and a serious issue

    I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause "great floods" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...

  • CON

    Ok

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Ok

  • CON

    I accept your challenge, and look forward to this debate.

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    I accept your challenge, and look forward to this debate.

  • PRO

    Wait, my debate settings didn't work properly. Just post...

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Wait, my debate settings didn't work properly. Just post something inane for your argument's and i'll set another one up.

  • CON

    Ok

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Ok

  • CON

    Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some...

    A referendum will create a better political climate.

    A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct rebuke to their own power. Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some constituents want it. It is not the job of government to neutralize radical voices, but to offer better alternatives while preserving freedom of expression. If parties want to resolve the Europe question, they should do so through established political channels. improve this  

  • PRO

    But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    Round 3: Refutation of opponents argument "This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years." Point 1 Temperature and CO2 - Vostok ice-core In Con's graph associated with the above quoted text, what you actually see is Co2 levels increasing fairly consistently with a rise in temperature. However what you also see is the temperature dropping suddenly with a much greater lag in Co2 levels dropping that you see on the rising side of these peaks. If Co2 is the main contributing factor in global temperature, then how could the temperature drop thousands of years before the Co2 levels. Con's graph in this case actually serves to illustrate that Co2 levels are NOT the main contributing factor in global temperature. Point 2 The next graph provided by Con only covers the years between 1850 and 2013, We definitely see a rise in temperature along side the rise of Co2 levels, but what does this mean? In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature. The only problem is that humans were not present in our current industrial state during the peak shown between 350,000-300,000, nor were we present during the peak between 250,000-200,000, and AGAIN we weren't present during the peak between 150,000-100,000! The only peak we are present for is the one between 50,000 and current, and this last peak looks identical to all the other peaks that have occurred during this ice age! The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. Lastly, Con provided a link to Perfluorotributylamine, this gas is extremely rare less than 1 part per trillion. precisely 0.18 parts per trillion, that is less than 2/10ths of 1 part per trillion. I can't even begin to explain how rare that is. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation. They are based on a consensus which is fueled by our desire to "Not break the planet" I understand this desire, there is no argument that pollution is good. But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial periods on pollution isn't going to help us better understand our environment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... If our Co2 centric models are actually the least accurate, then how can we expect speculative models like the "NO HUMAN INFLUNCE" model to mean anything but "PLEASE SUPPORT US EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE IS WRONG" Consensus is only evoked when the science isn't strong enough.

  • CON

    I accept.

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    I accept.

  • CON

    My dear friend i think as you mentioned above you were...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    My dear friend i think as you mentioned above you were against the changes in the lifestyle of humans because that is leading to bees extinction. But now you are favouring technology in some parts too. Just take care what you actually feel is the reason for the declination. My last words would be that bees have a relevant role in the environment but we cant go against human ways just to encourage their safety . Bees are important the same as the requirements of the people because declining needs of people have never been seen so its time to save bees by technology too. When we can discover ways how to save human beings then why not bees ? and that can be possible only through technology.