The Instigator
Toucan_Sam
Pro (for)
Winning
76 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,014 times Debate No: 4102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (161)
Votes (23)

 

Toucan_Sam

Pro

Alright you asked for it. Now lets get started.

I am going to make this as easy as possible for you. I am going to lay everything out in a clear-cut manner. I will tell you what is fact and what is speculation.

First off we must address climate.

Climate definition roughly means the physical properties of the troposphere (thats a layer in the atmosphere) of an area based on analysis of its weather records over a long period of time. The two main factors that determine the climate is temperature and amount and distribution. Got that so far.

Now one of the main culprits of Global Climate change is the Greenhouse Gases lets get a definition.

Greenhouse Gases- Gases in the lower atmosphere that cause the Greenhouse affect. These include carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide.

Now lets get a definition of Greenhouse effect
Greenhouse Effect- A natural effect that releases heat in the atmosphere near the earth's surface. Greenhouse Gases (those stated above) absorb some of the heat that is radiated by the earth's surface. This heat that is absorbed is then re-radiated out to heat the atmosphere. If natural causes do not keep greenhouse gases under control the temperature will rise.

There now that we have these facts (yes these above are facts and are impossible to prove otherwise, chemically its impossible)

Now we must look at what is going on today.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com...

Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature. However remember that temperatures will only rise if the rate of replenishment is greater than that of the carbon emissions (in other words how much plant life converts into oxygen) Lets look at that

Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate http://news.mongabay.com...

The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen.

Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insolation power.http://www.terranature.org...

Now lets combine all those factors in one.

We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.
By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature.

Now what to do about it becomes the real problem.
Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today.

Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back.
Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates).

Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation.

Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable.
sadolite

Con

First screw you and condescending snot nosed attitude towards me in defining climate, green house gasses and the green house effect. I don't have a problem with any of those definitions they are all naturally occurring things that enable the earth to have an atmosphere.

Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com......

So lets see CORNELIA DEAN a columnist at the N.Y. Times who is such a crappy and incompetent reporter who so lazy that she cant even provide a source for the claim she makes in this article or even the name of the institution or names of scientists who provided the information. Let me let you in on something. You are going to have to provide peer reviewed research done by peer reviewed scientists in order to use it as a source. I have been ridiculed and chastised for not doing so and you will be to. There is no way for me to verify this information and who did the research. I will allow you to come up with another source that meets peer reviewed credentials in the next round. But for now it is a worthless source.

"Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature."

Please provide your source that proves there is a direct relationship between Co2 and rises in temps.

"Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate "http://news.mongabay.com......

Sorry but this is a blog and is worthless as a source. It is not peer reviewed.

"The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen."

Again, what is your source.

"Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insulation power".http://www.terranature.org......

Another blog, again a worthless source.

"We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature".

What is your source.

"Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today".

This is an opinion

"Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back."

This is an opinion

Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates).

Please provide source

"Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation."

I don't have a problem with this statement although a "die hard enviromentalist" being for nuclear energy sounds like an oxymorn to me.

"Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable."

When you provide peer reviewede sources where indicated I will glady respond to each and every one. You must at the very least provide the scientits name or names so I can veryfy who they are and what their credtials are. I'm sorry but what's exspected of me should also be expected of you. I have had to many debates on this subject and have learned my lesson, now it's your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
Toucan_Sam

Pro

Ok first off you have proven in other debates that you don't read between the lines that well. Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me.

She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look.

Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read.

Tim Flannery, Weather Maker

G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth

Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories
Fritjof Capra-Gaia
Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making
Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy

There, start with that.

Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems. Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion.

I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause.

A separate point aside. Avery and Singer fail to address several important factors
Solar Dimming
Carbon accumulation and acceleration
I mean the point where they day the Atmosphere is "saturated with CO2" is wrong. There is still C02 being pumped into the air today, right now.
Plus they were funded by Natural Gas.
sadolite

Con

Here is a link to a litany of links that talk about Co2 and the parts per million and the sensitivity of the earths climate to it. All of them put it in to context which your links do not do. And also state that people who use these figures to create a sense of urgency that catastrophic doom is eminent are completely wrong. These are all peer reviewed sources.

"All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the Internet. You just need to look."

The burden of proof is on you my responsibility is to prove what you say is flawed or incorrect based on the sources you provide to make your case.

"Plus the Internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read."

The Internet is a global warming alarmist worst nightmare. No where in the entire world are these peer reviewed reports that dispute your claims reported in any news media outlet. And they nver will be. There is obviously a concerted effort to silence these reports because it would make the environmental agenda look like a complete fraud. It is a fraud.

Next your litany of books to read. Ummmmm

As no one will know what they are about let alone where the research to write these books came from and the context they are written in. This is not an argument nor a source it is a list of books that no one who reads this debate can use as information to make an educated vote. None the less I took the time to look for reviews of each book because I can't possible locate and read each book in 3 days and the fact that you would insinuate that I read all of these books and respond to each one of them in this debate is beyond preposterous.

Tim Flannery, Weather Maker
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com...

G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth

Both of those reviewers, however, expressed some reservations. Luke said that the book's author, G. Tyler Miller, Jr., continually promoted his own environmental philosophy, even though Environmental Science was supposed to be a textbook rather than a manifesto.

Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories

This is a critical evaluation of Fritjof Capra's systems theory in his book The Web of Life (Anchor Books, 1996). His theory states that properties of the whole cannot be found on the level of its components or parts. The interrelationship between parts creates new properties, so called emergent properties, that are only intrinsic to the system as a whole and not to any of its parts.

Uhhh what the F##k?

Fritjof Capra-Gaia

Again, what the f##k?

Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making

This is a personal view of this man, it is not a source for climate research.

Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy

Hydrogen will never be an alternative energy source. This man is a complete fraud. The link below proves this and it is irrefutable. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Splitting hydrogen atoms from other elements uses as much energy or more than hydrogen generates. Not to mention the additional energy required to compress it into a liquid and last but not least the catastrophic dangers that go with commpressed gasses at 4000 psi. let alone highly flammable gasses
http://mb-soft.com...

"Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems"

I guess because you say it it's the truth. No sources as you can see to back up this statement

" Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion."

I completely agree with this statement, But what it has to do with the climate is unclear because again you provide no source to make the correlation.

"I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause"

There is no evidence to nit pick, you have proved nothing and I have backed up every single thing that I have said with peer reviewed sources. The one thing the debaters should note is that my oppenet has not provided a single peer reviewed source and didn't even respond with sources to many of his prior claims in round 2.
Debate Round No. 2
Toucan_Sam

Pro

Ok so instead of arguing and coming up with evidence you just decide to discredit my sources. Very well I can do the same I guess.

In response to your link from the Committee of Environment and Public Works we are only looking at the minority page. Plus its their blog. Sure they may have cited resources but they are only citing sources that fit in with their agenda. Are they going to give you any bi-partisan view? Of course not. Senator Inhofe comes from a state where oil is king, I find it a little hard to take him too seriously. Most of the research talks about a global temperature model which hasn't really be considered accurate. It seems more like a twisting of words more than anything.

After reading through some of them like this one http://www.npr.org...
it sounds more like they are unsure.

Those books I suggested are some of the resources that I cited my information from. Those books are all interrelated to each-other and allows the reader to look at things on a broader scale.

Tim flannery has a cited section in his book. He isn't just making up facts on random and publishing them.

Sustaining the Earth is peer reviewed by other experts in the field. You can even find their names and credentials in the book. You can even find all of the research that was cited.

Fritjof Capra system theories is a very important book. It is examining various natural systems and their affects. Such as the Carbon cycle or ocean currents. It gives a viewpoint on all parts and gives a better understanding on system affects and what happens when we change them for better or for worse.

Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy is not totally using hydrogen as a resource. It also talks about, mismanagement of fossil fuels, the over estimate of current oil fields, and the hydrogen cycle. Please if you are going to complain about the sources read them at least before you do.

Clearcutting was back in response to the previous round,here is my statement "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today".

and yours-This is an opinion

I made that argument because clear-cutting is promoting erosion. When the rain comes from the remainder of the rain forest it washes away the rich topsoil and leaves the farmers with bare land that they cannot farm on. Plus by removing the trees they are eliminating all the nutrients that would go back and replenish the ground there fore breaking the carbon cycle.
Yes the internet is an awful place for sceintfic journals. All you get mainly is tid bits and newspaper quotes from the journals rather than all the research. Plus if we are truely trying to use these as sole resources then you must play by the rules. Many of these arguments that you are presenting fail the third rule of appeal to athority, in other words they have a bias.

My sources are contained in many of those books. I have backed up my information. You still haven't responed to the natural rate article or anything else in the articles that i have mentioned previously. Here are some more though.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov...
http://laps.fsl.noaa.gov...

The burden of proof is on me however you have done very little to dispute my claims. When I give you my resources you balk and complain. I fail to see how this is a productive use of our time.
You said for me to show a relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

You have failed to cite any specific sources that refute my claim. All you have done is attempt to dispute my sources and discredit them.

I don't think its voter bias that causes you to lose but rather poor argumentation skills, poor evidence, and lack of tact. Please try and find specific sources not a link to a government blog to a list. That would not fly on any professional paper.

I mean you just bashed Man Bear Pig when he presented sources that actaully have some crediblitly to disputing Global Warming instead.

On a side note Man Bear Pig I would love to have a debate with you on the subject and I am keenly interested on more of your points. I would be very appreciative if you could perhaps email some of your points. I enjoy looking at both sides and its very rare that I see the other side presented so well, kudos to you.
sadolite

Con

I am going to take manbars advice and just turn this into a he said she said debate. I believe my opponent is irrational. I say this because I have proven that Hydrogen will never be a fuel source for the world to lower Co2 levels. He continues to cling to and defend the writings of a book called the "Hydrogen Economy" I will tell you what the GNP of a hydrogen economy will be "0" And then my opponent goes on to believe the rest of what this man says even though the entire premise of the book is based on a complete fraud.
Hydrogen is a novelty and will never be an alternative fuel source, I have proven this categorically and irrefutably but my oppenet still defends it. This is an irrational act, a complete inability to accept the truth and the laws of physics. With that said there is no other research or science that will be acceptable other than what supports his agenda, no matter how flawed or misleading or taken out of context. His source are the words of a god and mine are all just big piles of crap that aren't even worth considering because of some political reason and the content is obviously bought and paid for by some big oil company or someone with an agenda. But of course his sources are all absolute fact.

Tigers are in the woods - tigers hate noise - I make lots of noise -there are no tigers in the woods.

Co2 exists - the planet is warming - Co2 levels increase - Co2 causes warming.

I have credible peer review research that says Co2 levels lag or only increase if the planet warms and then decrease when it cools.

There is no credible evidence to prove that Co2 causes the planet to warm, only speculation.

We have addressed cleaning up the environment and have spent billions of dollars doing it. Catalytic converters for cars, scrubbers for coal burning power plants, Lighter cars with better fuel economy, I could go on and on and on. You need to bitch at the rest of the world as we are the only country in the world that requires catalytic converters on their cars.
You say we need cars that run on alternative fuel sources. Got news for ya they have all been built Hydrogen, Electric, methane you name it its been done. Only problem is no fuel to put in them. I will leave that responsibility on your shoulders and all of the rest of the environmentalists because you want to cut oil production before you have even found an alternative. And since you are going to make the rest of the world suffer by artificially inflating gas prices and making everything else cost more and there by liming everything and destroying the economy. I think the least you could do as an environmentalist is suspend your billion dollar ruse tax increases disguised as carbon credits and pay for all the research out of your own pockets.

What is more likely using "Occam's Razor" All of the glaciers are going to melt if man does not cut Co2 emissions. There have been 100,s if not 1,000's of Ice ages and warming periods this is just another cycle and there is nothing we can do about it.

Water vapor represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses Co2 represents at the most 2% Co2 is the primary factor for the planets warming trend, Not likely

Melting glaciers lag behind warming trends by 100 years there is no correlation between Co2, glaciers and the planets current warming trend

Climate researchers predicted in the 1970's that the planet would plunge into another ice age if something wasn't done. I guess we are saving the planet from another ice age by burning fossil fuels. Climate researchers record for accurately predicting future climates "O" Now all of the sudden 100% perfect accuracy and irrefutable.

The answer to the title of your debate is simple: impose your environmental agenda on the world at any cost which is the current course of the environmental agenda and be damned the people and the suffering it will cause in the name of saving the world.

My view on the title: Increase oil production to keep people and world economies going and do what we can if anything to look for alternatives and offer Gov't funded prizes to people and corporations who can come up with viable Ideas that will work instead of demonizing everyone and wasting money on pie in the sky P.R stunts like Hydrogen powered cars.

There is no looming threat and the world is not going to suffer from these ridiculous predictions made by environmentalists and everyone else in the global warming dooms day agenda. I predict in 5 years that in third world countries that people who admit to being an environmentalist will have to ware a bullet proof vest. The environmentalist agenda is already hurting my ability to provide for my family by not allowing us to to drill for more oil on our soil causing oil prices to be artificially high.

I can assure you of one thing, Nobody will care about the environment if they are forced to live in the conditions that dooms day environmental predict for the future if they have to live that way today, which is the path that is being taken by environmentalists today. Their agenda is going to back fire when people start dying in third world countries and they will have nobody to blame but them selves and god help you all if your dooms day predictions don't come true while Co2 emissions increase over the next 20 years. They will increase because the population will increase and more Co2 will be produced. Unless of course the real agenda of environmentalists is wholesale genocide by starvation.

I would ask my opponent not to list any sources in his rebuttal as they are just as worthless as mine. Climate research is not science it is a political view point, No more time or money should be spent studying the climate it is a colossal waste of taxpayers money.
Debate Round No. 3
Toucan_Sam

Pro

Ok first off If you read my post about the Hydrogen economy I am not citing the entire book. I was citing the over estimating of useable oil left in reserves and the political implications. NOT HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE. No where have I said that hydrogen would be a good source because you are right about its, its too expensive and produces a lot of water vapor.

Those studies are just proxy studies and that research fails to account for the massive quantities release into the atmosphere through emissions. Plus no you haven't showed and direct link for any data such as that. Least not in this debate.

CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quatities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossiable to think otherwise.

Oh and catalytic converters has now been linked with production of nitrous oxide. Another wonderful greenhouse gas. Plus burn more fuel.

Gas prices are already inflated and not due to enviromentalists. Production is tapping out. Our oil reserves are starting to run dry. There is still a lot of oil left. However not all of it is retrievable. Countries are overestimating oil reserves, Hydrogen economy discusses that quite in depth.

Yes there have been warming periods and cooling periods. However there are very few that have such a high growth rate in greenhouse gases combined with a high species extinction rate.

Well the scientists in the 70s are not totally wrong. When large amounts of heating occurs it changes the climate and weather patterns. This can create another ice age or other adverse climate changes

Millions of people are starving right now. We could solve world hunger right now with a small tax and genetically engineered food. However Americans for the most part would most likely whine and complain. Rather we rather waste our money on war and oppression. Don't feed me that crap. Most of those countries can't afford to think of a tractor. Plus they aren't emitting hardly any emissions so it does affect them. We are the ones that are wasting and throwing away tons of resources. WE should pay the price of our self-indulgence.

The reason oil prices are so high is because our current government set us up for economic disaster. With the dollar being so highly inflated it raises great concern on the market. Since oil commodities are in dollar amounts they go up with inflation too. On top of this foreign investors who have higher currency then us (the European union) buy this oil because it creates a good hedge fund in the portfolio. Now they have a commodity that has a demand and with more and more purchases will only drive up the price.

Plus the oil in the Alaskan refuge is miniscule. It would barely make a dent in gas prices. It would be years before we would see it hit the market in full force. However right now Alberta just found a huge oil reserve. Plus oil will run out before 2020. Or at least the reserves that we currently can access. Plus OPEC has also said they will not increase production. So its not the environmentalist fault.

"Climate research is not science it is a political view point".

Did you just seriously say that. I mean seriously that is one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard. I suppose then all the research saying that nothing is happening is just a political viewpoint. Yes the climate of Hawaii and its origin must all be a political viewpoint. Are you a scientist? Are you even qualified in the least to make that assumption?

Lets just pretend (I'm just asking you to pretend not believe all-right.) that we really are ruining the planet. Lets pretend that we mess it up and we cease to exist as a species. Wouldn't you want to save the very thing that you depend on to survive. If we destroy our planet we are out of luck. Thats it no more. Wouldn't you want to try to do anything to protect the planet for the sake of your own life and if not but for your children's sake.

But no of course not. We must burn the wildlife refuges and drill for oil and pillage our earth's pantry until its bear. We are overfishing our oceans, exhausting fields of their soil, destroying ecosystems for sake of greed. Honey Bees our most foremost pollinator are dying and we have no idea why.

But no, you say drill for the oil, cut down the forest, we are not citizens of nature but masters of it. Well guess what, we are not masters or conquers we are residents. The real danger is the dire state our planet it in. Environmentalist are fighting for balance. You spew all of this garbage out of your mouth about how environmentalism is evil and is just robbing america blind. Have you ever considered that is might be the other way around?
sadolite

Con

Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point.

"CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise"

There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this.

You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say

Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right?

It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source.

The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics.

Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise"

All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.
Debate Round No. 4
Toucan_Sam

Pro

Everything that I am saying about global climate change or global is not political. Some of it is like proposed solutions are but the facts are the facts. You seem to preach about all of this evidence but I have failed to see any specific source. Citing just a press blog of a bunch of studies is not a proper citation and is not within context.

What is your scientific training? When was the last time you took a class or attended a lecture about climate and our world? For me it was just two weeks ago. I don't think you have the credibility or the knowledge to determine what science is garbage and what is not.

Catalytic converters have solved the smog problem. However this has come at the cost of lower fuel efficacy, removal of rare metals to produce it, and the recent discovery of nitrous oxide being released. I don't have a solution because I am not a engineer. I don't have the slightest notion where to start.

I think I did provide peer reviewed sources. The books, the government websites didn't that do the trick. I mean you certainly didn't have anything to refute any of those claims or at least for the stuff you can read. Plus you provided very few sources yourself. Just links to blogs and a press page for a opposing political viewpoint.

Are you an expert to determine what is a waste of taxpayers money. What about the war on drugs or the war in Iraq or no child left behind. Now those are wastes of tax payers money. Our government wastes far too much money on other things rather than climate change.

"The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics."

Science only settles itself when it reaches a conclusion. Right now the conclusion is that we are injuring the planet and ruining our chances for survival. No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will still be around. However we might not be. They are only supporting the movement because they believe their data has proven that is the correct choice.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu...

What about these scientists. You have to go down to Annex 2.

Really when it comes down to it you have provided very little sources, failed to refuted many of my claims, and failed to establish and logical connection. I mean you run around claiming that all of these scientist who are against you are somehow wrong in their data and presentation. Do you even have a college degree? Right now I am trying to finish mine in history and environmental conservation.

Really though I do envy you. It must be incredibly nice to be so ignorant of what is truly happening in our planet and government.

But of course you with your infinite wisdom knows better I'm sure.
sadolite

Con

Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the subject. And of course you give a source which is the word of god and cannot be refuted in any way. Your sources just like mine are worthless except your sources aren't because you of course went to a class. And you also believe in people who tout hydrogen as the next great fuel source. You discredit all of my sources in the a typical environmentalist manner, Politics or it is bought and paid for by some greedy corporation or go as far to reject it by the political affiliation of the Governor of some state. How pathetic. If all of my sources and evidence are going to be rejected because of political reasons then yours are all just as worthless for the same reasons. The only difference is I provide more thorough and reviewed research that makes yours look foolish.
Debate Round No. 5
161 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wildcard173 4 years ago
wildcard173
This is a good debate. Going to enjoy it. Also, not to be rude or add spam, but my own vanity and narcissism won't allow me to let this be...It seems one of my debates is getting zero votes, although it should be an easy win for me. Please vote if you have time. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
If the worlds economy goes in the dump because of a lack of oil to keep it going right now, there will be no future.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
I never said there was no oil worth drilling for.

I think perhaps the concept of saving for the future is too hard for you.
Oh well, never mind.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Derek, I will never believe anything anyone says about the amount of oil until I see oil wells drilled and actually measured through the hole that was drilled. I will never believe a politician nor will I believe the Govt. The only people that I will believe are the oil companies. They are the experts and they are willing to spend billions if the govt gets the hell out of the way. They would not be willing to do this if there were no oil worth drilling for as you state. It is business 101
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
That quote was from John McCain.

I'm so glad you're supporting him Sadolite ;-)
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
In Florida, you must've been out on boats with echo sounders...
Some sophisticated fishing boats have ones that map the bottom (showing you how hard and soft bottom is) and even show you were the fish are.

A similar technique is used for generating 3-D maps of oil fields. They know very accurately the shape, depth and size of the oil fields.

If we don't have an inducement to discover sustainable alternatives the economy and people who can only survive because of oil are doomed.
Extracting the last oil from the world's last oil fields means delaying the identical result by a matter of weeks and making the future worse for your children and mine.

Tell me what's wrong with what I've said. Show us some evidence that I'm completely wrong.

Here's something for intelligent conservatives reading this:
"Global warming is a serious threat. There is overwhelming evidence that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide [and other gases] are heating up the Earth's climate and that inaction could be disastrous..."
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
All of your points are personal assumptions based on your environmentalist agenda. There is no way you can prove the amount of oil in ANWAR and offshore. For all anybody knows it could be the mother load of all mother loads. You just hope and pray that it isn't and remain willing to never find out even if it means destroying the world economy and starving millions of people to death.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Mmmmm by holding a position you don't agree with I'm a threat to the entire world.

Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's imagine people had been more dynamic, and the Alaskan oil fields had been tapped 10 years ago.

But now it's 2008 and all the Alaskan oil is gone.
What has been gained?
A few more people own SUVs and Hummers than they otherwise would have.
Now we (and the economy) are in the same position, except that:
a) The ANWAR area has been wrecked
b) the oil is all gone
c) we've got even more CO2 and other pollutants in the air.

*The innovation the world needs doesn't happen until oil gets scarce.*
Do we raid the piggy bank like a greedy child, or do we get a newspaper round?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Your refusal to acknowledge the reality of this and many other nations delima with regard to oil production is obvious. You are completely incapable of understanding the danger to the entire worlds economic survival and the role oil plays in it. Who isn't for new forms of clean energy? What you don't understand is you can't destroy the economy and put the nation in jeopardy by having a no new drilling for oil position. That position is the position of self destruction and suicide for the nation. In my opinion anyone who would hold that position is a threat to the world and everyone who lives in it.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
The US burns twice the coal and oil the the European Union does for a very similar quality of life.
There are obviously ways in which things could be organised differently.

Also, the less demand for oil there is, the cheaper it'll be, and you'd like that wouldn't you?
Yes, cheap oil, soooo nice. |-)
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by stormchaser221 8 years ago
stormchaser221
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Toucan_SamsadoliteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70