The Instigator
MrMarkP37
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points

"Global Warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,894 times Debate No: 8717
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

MrMarkP37

Pro

So called "global warming" is a lie spread by eco-terrorists. The periodic cooling and heating of the planet is a well-known phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of the our planet. The current crisis has been spread by eco-terrorists like the ELF for the purposes of trying to scare people into giving up as much technology as possible and returning to a more primitive life-style.
Carbon does indeed build up in the atmosphere, but as mentioned before this is a natural cycle of the Earth. We are simply living in a period of increased warmth and eco-terrorists are using this to build hysteria.
Danielle

Con

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880 - and Pro acknowledges it - THE DEFINITION OF GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN AFFIRMED. This entirely negates the resolution which claims that it is a lie. Therefore, you must vote Con. Whether or not humans are responsible for Global Warming is irrelevant; all I must do to win this debate is prove that Global Warming is not a lie, or a lie promoted by eco-terrorists.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I have problems with the neologism of the term eco-terrorism in general. Wikipedia defines it as the use or threatened use of violence against victims or property by an environmentally-oriented group. So-called eco-terrorists are accused and are probably guilty of committing crimes against private property, i.e. by burning bulldozers, sabotaging animal research equipment, etc. However, if terrorism itself is defined as being the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce (dictionary.com), how can terror be applied to property? Inanimate objects cannot be terrified. Damage or destruction towards property indicates VANDALISM; not terrorism.

Even the most radical green enthusiasts have not been in the habit of threatening people or animals with physical harm (quite the contrary, actually), so the promotion of Global Warming awareness by these individuals does not imply terrorism of any kind. Therefore, it can be argued that eco-terrorists do not even exist. Further evidence of this BS terminology (administered by the Bush administration as yet another example of fear mongering, obviously) is the fact that all 53 activists accused of being eco-terrorists were put on a list which has subsequently been purged, as the government found no evidence of violent crimes. Thus, if eco-terrorists do not even exist, then they can't be spreading lies about Global Warming. Again, I have successfully negated the resolution.

Finally, Pro accuses those who believe that humans are responsible for Global Warming do so for the purposes of trying to scare people into returning to a more primitive lifestyle. This is completely unsupported. First, National Geographic notes that 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. That may be why activists are trying to raise awareness -- not so that we can go back to being primitive. Second, those who believe in Global Warming seek to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. This again negates Pro's premise that Global Warming is a "lie" being spread by so-called eco-terrorists with bad intentions.
Debate Round No. 1
MrMarkP37

Pro

If you'll notice the thesis is that "global warming" is a lie. You'll notice the quotes. I admit that the goes through periods of heating and cooling. What I believe is a lie is that it is man-made and that it will continue to get hotter without a cooling period. It is a natural cycle of the earth.

Now the eco-terrorists want you to believe that the entire scientific community agrees that man-made global warming (refered to hereafter as global warming) is real.
The truth is that over seventeen-thousand scientists not only disagree, but disagree so much that they circulated and signed a petition explaining that there was no scientific evidence for global warming. www.oism.org

Satellite readings show no sign of global warming. These satellites read global temperatures in the lower troposphere in the last twenty-three years. These satellites are extremely accurate. Only land-based temperature stations show signs of global warming and these stations are historically inaccurate as they must deal with increased heat readings from urban areas, are subject to human error and do not measure global temperatures.

A little global warming (Earth's cycle, not man-made) would be good for the Earth and humanity.
There were two early periods of a global increase in temperature from what we experience now. The first was around 5000 to 3000 B.C. During this time man began to build his first civilizations. This time period was called the climate optimum. During the time period between 800 and 1200. It allowed the Vikings to settle Greenland.
Danielle

Con

Thank you, Pro, for your rebuttal.

Let's begin.

Pro argues that the "eco-terrorists" want us to believe that the entire scientific community agrees that global warming is man-made, and that there are over 17,000 scientists who disagree. While that figure may be true, still the MAJORITY of scientists agree that some form of global warming is, in fact, man-made. Additionally, my opponent's cited source (www.oism.org) is merely a link to the Oregon Institute of Science -- It's not a credible source of any information validating his claim.

While there is virtually UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" is not a lie as suggested by the resolution. You don't need to be a scientist to figure this out; it's common sense. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. THIS IS UNDENIABLE. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. THIS IS ANOTHER FACT. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1].

My point here is that to claim human activity has nothing to do with global warming is just non-sensical. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation... meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions... so obviously there is going to be an impact.

My opponent's next contention is that satellite readings show no sign of global warming. This is FALSE. The New York Times presented an article which confirms that while orbiting satellites have suggested that the lower atmosphere is cooling, this evidence has been distorted by the inevitable decay, or lowering, of the satellites' orbits as they encounter atmospheric resistance. Once this error is corrected, the scientists report that the satellite record shows the atmosphere has actually become warmer. Dr. John R. Christy - an originator and keeper of the satellite record - acknowledges this discrepancy and said that other corrections involving things like the east-west drift of the satellites and instrument temperatures have also been made. The net result of all the corrections shows warming in the lower atmosphere [2]. In other words, the arguments put forth by Pro are outdated and false. The data has been corrected and said satellites now indicate that global warming is not, in fact, a lie.

For his last argument, my opponent claims that "a little global warming would be good for the Earth and humanity." He notes the Vikings settling Greenland between 800 and 1200 as 'proof' of this phenomena (even despite the fact that we have already settled most of the inhabitable world). Anyway, I NEGATE. Some repercussions of global warming include - but are not limited to - Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters; The growth of deserts can cause food shortages in many places; More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans (which obviously affects the entire ecosystem and food chain, including humans); Hundreds of millions of people will live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities, i.e. destruction; Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water, etc. [1]. I fail to see how ANY of those repercussions are good for the Earth and humanity.

On a final note, Pro dropped my entire argument regarding the existence of so-called "eco-terrorists" in the first place. Thus if eco-terrorists do not even exist, then clearly they can not be responsible for spreading the "lie" of man-made global warming. I also dismantled the position entirely about these so-called terrorists having a goal of trying to make people return to a primitive lifestyle. That is a ridiculous premise with absolutely no basis; proof is the fact that Pro has not even attempted to prove it -- he merely made this outlandish assertion and expects the audience to believe him. This is a logical fallacy. Additionally, even if global warming WAS a lie (which I have proven it is not), activists intentions are positive to humanity, i.e. improving fuel efficiency, cleaning our air and water, etc.

The resolution has been negated.

Sources:

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[2] http://www.heatisonline.org...
Debate Round No. 2
MrMarkP37

Pro

I dropped your argument about eco-terrorists because it is ridiculous. That's like saying anti-life people don't exist (anti-life would refer to what some pro-life people call pro-choice people). You might not like that I call them eco-terrorists (i.e. you don't believe what they do spreads terror) but it is an established fact that groups like ELF exist and that there are people in those groups.

"While that figure may be true, still the MAJORITY of scientists agree that some form of global warming is, in fact, man-made....
...While there is virtually UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT in the scientific community that global warming is man-made,"

This is exactly the type of argument that I'm talking about. You seem to concede my point and then overstate the agreement in the scientific community. It seems that people think if they repeat something over and over again people will be forced to believe it.

I'm sure that humans impact the environment, but I don't see your correlation to global warming. You site, deforestation, industrialization, and pollution. The only specific example, deforestation, is another misnomor. Deforestation doesn't occur as much as the eco-terrorists that control some politicians want us to believe. When trees are logged new trees are planted to replace the trees cut. As far as industrialization and pollution I don't understand these arguments. The industrial revolution began in England late 18th and early 19th century and spread to the United States shortly thereafter. During the early years of industrialization and well beyond they pumped chemicals into the sky with little to no environmental protection. This caused some bad pollution of water and sometimes air quality, but if these practices affected temperatures (i.e. global warming) then why didn't global warming start to get worse much sooner? It doesn't make sense that this global warming only started in the late 60's and early 70's.
Also the anartic ice is not melting, it is in fact gaining ice.
Sorry about the link, I figured anyone that was interested would be able to glance at the left side and see global warming petition. Here is the exact link: http://www.oism.org...

Here is a link to a diary of ELF actions between 2006-2008 to show they do exist:http://www.elfpressoffice.org...
Here is a link from the ELF site that describes what they believe that global warming is and what they want members to do to "help". http://www.elfpressoffice.org...
The ELF believes that by destroying private property they can create change. They are criminals that want to spread hysteria about environmental isssues including "global warming".

There is no credible scientific evidence that man-made global warming exists and that it is not simply a product of the Earth's natural cycle.

In addition, the things that many of these "enviornmentalists" want us to do would cause a further collapse of the world economy. We would have to spend a massive amount of money to change over to new technologies, energy costs would go through the roof, and taxes would go up. All this to "fix" something that doesn't exist and isn't even a problem.
This could lead to a widespread collapse of the world economy and plunge into a non-technological society, a goal that I believe is the main motiviation of eco-terrorists.
Danielle

Con

Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MrMarkP37

Pro

as con has forfeited her round I will let my final argument from the previous round stand on its own merit. I hope that everyone votes pro and I hope that the lwerd will post a final argument. Thank you for a good debate.
Danielle

Con

I apologize, Pro, for missing the last round; the 1 day time limit affected my ability to post in time.

1. Re: Eco-Terrorists

The problem with your analogy of relating "anti-life" people to "eco-terrorists" is that it can be argued that "anti-life" people actually exist. While I strongly disagree with the term, those considered anti-life are said to choose the option of Choice over Life. However, those considered eco-terrorists aren't choosing TERRORISM over anything. Vandalism, maybe. To automatically accept the term would be irresponsible. First, arguing over the wording of a resolution is often the key to a victor's success - especially if there are discrepancies with it. Second, that's like saying using the word "Indian" in the resolution is appropriate when referencing a Native American. If the resolution read "The U.S. should pay reparations to Indians," Pro might have a shot if he or she is discussing, say, The Cherokees. However Pro would have a hell of a time winning the debate if it was interpreted that "Indians" referenced the people who live in India. Likewise, it would be hard for Con to defend ANY type of terrorists, let alone ones that do not even exist (hence my argument).

2. Re: Scientific Consensus

After making the statement, "While that figure may be true, still the MAJORITY of scientists agree that some form of global warming is, in fact, man-made... While there is virtually UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT in the scientific community that global warming is man-made," Pro claimed that I "conceded to his point" and then over-stated what the scientific community actually believes. This is false. I conceded to the idea that 17,000 scientists might feel a certain way, sure. But then I explained that the MAJORITY of them disagree, i.e. the majority of scientists exceeds 17,000. Additionally, my claim that there us virtually a "unanimous agreement" in the community aren't my words -- I got that idea from a credible source (which I cited).

3. Re: Human Impact

Pro has said that he doesn't see the correlation between human involvement and global warming. I mentioned that human activity causes us to emit a lot of carbon emissions and other harmful gases that the plants we have cannot possibly counter via oxygen production (i.e. a problem with the Greenhouse Effect) at the same rate. This is not my opinion, but again a scientific fact. Pro points out that tree loggers plant new trees after they cut some old ones down; however, this is almost entirely irrelevant -- a tree doesn't grow overnight and therefore the capacity to counter carbon dioxide at a productive rate is inconsistent.

Additionally, Pro asks, "[Industrialization] caused some bad pollution of water and sometimes air quality, but if these practices affected temperatures (i.e. global warming) then why didn't global warming start to get worse much sooner? It doesn't make sense that this global warming only started in the late 60's and early 70's." Truth be told, I have no idea where Pro got this information. It is not true that global warming began the 1960s or 1970s. It has been going on for hundreds of years. In fact, the very definition of global warming implies that there has been a gradual heat rising in the earth's atmosphere over a LONG period of time (hundreds of years) and supporters note that these temperature increases happen gradually.

5. Re: Arctic Ice

Pro claims that the arctic is not losing but actually gaining ice. He offers no proof of this. I have a link to a credible source that explains otherwise: Average temperatures in the Arctic region are rising twice as fast as they are elsewhere in the world. Arctic ice is getting thinner, melting and rupturing. For example, the largest single block of ice in the Arctic, the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, had been around for 3,000 years before it started cracking in 2000. Within two years it had split all the way through and is now breaking into pieces. The polar ice cap as a whole is shrinking. Images from NASA satellites show that the area of permanent ice cover is contracting at a rate of 9 percent each decade. If this trend continues, summers in the Arctic could become ice-free by the end of the century [1].

Re: ELF

I acknowledge that ELF exists; however, I do not believe in their cause. I also think it is wrong for Pro to imply that all environmentalists have the same goals as ELF (to use vandalism - not terrorism) as a means to an end. That's like saying everybody who is Pro Choice wants everyone to have a bunch of abortions. Not true.

Re: Evidence

Pro states, "There is no credible scientific evidence that man-made global warming exists and that it is not simply a product of the Earth's natural cycle." ... What?! Apparently Pro has been ignoring all of my facts and credible sources throughout this debate. Moreover, he completely IGNORED my argument about the misinformation or rather misinterpretation (which has since been rectified) of the satellite data he mistakenly introduced as an argument in his favor during a previous round. In other words, he realized my point(s) trumped his, and dropped the argument which was completely in my favor and explained how/why there IS credible proof that global warming is REAL (not a lie, as the resolution implies).

Re: Economy

Finally Pro says that it would be wrong to actually take means to protect the environment, as we would have to spend massive amounts of energy on technology changes, energy costs, etc. This is an extremely narrow-minded perspective, and also one that is incredibly false. As I have already mentioned, it is the goal of environmentalist and green political lobbyists to make the U.S. energy INDEPENDENT, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles (which would actually HELP the economy - especially the car industry) and propel America to invest in the new age technological revolution: The Green Revolution. It's no secret that energy alternatives are the wave of the future. Just as the "dot com" was the last big money making industry, now new, clean Energy alternatives are. Additionally, Pro noted that investment in these areas would raise taxes. What he failed to mention is that the number of jobs created to invest in these endeavors would actually help the economy (get people working again, meaning more taxes for the government, etc.)

Re: Goals

Finally, Pro maintains that environmentalists want us to return to a primitive lifestyle. This is a blatant use of fear mongering and misrepresentation. As I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this debate, it is the goal of environmentalists to help slow down or reverse the effects of global warming, and to kick start 21st century industries that would make our society more safe, livable and profitable. This includes progressing towards technologies of the future -- not regressing to a primitive lifestyle.

Re: Conclusion

I have proven that the term eco-terrorism is entirely inappropriate and not plausible, negating half of the resolution. However, even if you consider that to be a weak argument, I have also proven why global warming in general is NOT a lie, thereby also negating the other half (and perhaps the most important half) of the resolution. I acknowledge that I forfeited a round; as I said, the 1 day limit to post an argument impeded upon my ability to write one in time, as I am currently out of state. However, I believe all of my arguments have successfully countered my opponents, and that I have argued my side of the resolution effectively. I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting and thought provoking debate.

-- L

Sources:
[1] http://www.nrdc.org...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"And I can't believe that we don't all think like wjmelements."
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Me either"
Should be "me neither".

And I can't believe that we don't all think like wjmelements.

There are educated arguments on both sides. You just have to know where to look.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
GW is not rooted in opinion...
Posted by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
"I can't believe there's still some people who don't accept my beliefs. hurrrrrr"
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Me either. In all fairness, I think Pro was just arguing his position for the sake of debate; not because he's ignorant enough to think that GW doesn't exist.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
I can't believe there's still some people who don't accept global warming.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Lol. Exactly.

(@ wjmelements comment.)
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"eco-terrorists"

Lol.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
This raises a question: why were eco-activists preaching global cooling as being more likely than global warming just a few years ago?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
MrMarkP37DanielleTied
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 MrMarkP37 7 years ago
MrMarkP37
MrMarkP37DanielleTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
MrMarkP37DanielleTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
MrMarkP37DanielleTied
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