The Instigator
yeezhwen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
I_am_Spartacus
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Global Warming should be taken more seriously.

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 1 vote the winner is...
I_am_Spartacus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 84813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

yeezhwen

Pro

This is my first debate, so i hope i can do well
Since the Industrial Age, humans have been releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and after a century the effects have become significant. There are about 1 billion cars in the world, each releasing greenhouse gases. Yet actions taken by the government have not shown significant results. Even though most people believe that global warming is nothing more than a hoax, it is impossible to release so much poisonous gas into the atmosphere without causing any problems. That is why I strongly believe that global warming should be taken more seriously.
I_am_Spartacus

Con

As I explained in the comments section, out of fairness I will try not to make an in-depth argument in the first round. Depending on how much effort my opponent might want to put into defending his proposition the debate may end up being extended, and surely the subject matter is quite a complex one certainly requiring at least four debate rounds and 10,000 words in my opinion.

I'll try to sum up my objections as tersely as possible. I'll start by rebutting the premise. If we are to take man-made Global Warming seriously then there should be a track-record of where deniers like me have got it wrong and corollary where proponents were right in their predictions. There should be a wealth of evidence and support for the theory that without any serious doubt points to global warming being true. In fact neither of those necessary prerequisites are met.

Beyond actual flaws in several climate change predictions, of which some are quite staggering, as with the case of the LEAKED scientific report from IPCC by top scientists which showed that the warming only occurred at quarter the alleged rate spouted by IPCC (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) there have already been cases of deliberately misleading figures advancing the theory of the terrible cascading events of man-made global warming. An example would be all the fuss about polar bears becoming extinct while they're in fact booming (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) while scientists investigating the matter described the numbers they cited as ""A guess to satisfy public demand" (http://www.americanthinker.com...). Hence there have obviously been cases where data and evidence have been tampered with and falsified, later to be used in climate forecasts that by media and politicians is proclaimed as true. We all know there are vested interests in maintaining the narrative of man-made global warming alive and if one could remove the monetary and political interests from the actual science then we could go a long way in putting the appalling manipulation of scientific data to a halt and thereby preventing more spurious "facts" from entering the scientific as well as the political realm.

The scientific connection to politics in many aspects is troubling in the sense that science becomes to politicised, hence many scientists have voiced their concerns over the poking noses of the state into the sciences. Caesar's wife is not above suspicion. Perhaps this has more to do with whether or not one trusts the state since it's first and foremost incumbent on the state to take measures to battle man-made climate change. Now I'm the first to admit my bias and I think there are all kinds of reasons to suspect that the state does not always have the best intentions at heart and I think history is definitely proof of that. That is of course irrelevant to the question of whether man-made climate change is real or not, but the ever increasing presence of governments influencing sciences with regards to climate change research makes me at least raise a red flag about the legitimacy and the scope of the purported problem deceitful means must be employed to propagate the agenda.

I know there are sciences who genuinely believe it wholeheartedly and who've conducted honest research, but on the same side of that political aisle you have mendacious people who end up hurting the decent scientists by distorting facts to fit their own agenda, thereby truly not giving a damn about the true science which is still debated by real, honest scientists. That must be reason enough to throw some doubt upon the matter and have an open-mind rather than want to have us believe that we ought to take it more seriously.

Another reason to remain suspicious is the adamant rethoric by proponents of climate change that want to elevate it as "fact" as if the jury is out. "Trust the scientists" they say, As a matter of fact, there are many scientists who don't concur with the established saga of man-made global warming. The frequently cited 97% figure imply that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change while in fact the dubious questionnaire they used to arrive at this figure don't really tell us anything about whether they believe in man-made global warming (http://www.wsj.com...). And that's just another troubling piece of evidence which really isn't any piece of evidence other than that of an agenda whose supporters clearly have no compunction to produce forged statistics to deceive the public.

The debate as to the extent humans have on the climate as a whole is still hotly debated. Perhaps my opponent is more interested in going into the actual science of it all and reject the shady misrepresentations going on which undeniably has occurred. I gave you only a small peek into the fiddling of facts and the perfidious nature of many elements of this climate change industry. I don't think there is substantial evidence to suggest that humans are causing a massive warming of the planet (in fact, I'll argue that humans have little to no effect with all things considered) It would be very unwise to not look into the shifty nature of the industry before leaping to the conclusion Pro wants us to make. I beg to differ.
Debate Round No. 1
yeezhwen

Pro

yeezhwen forfeited this round.
I_am_Spartacus

Con

I need a little more commitment than that from Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
yeezhwen

Pro

yeezhwen forfeited this round.
I_am_Spartacus

Con

This is why I have a deep distrust of first-comers
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 1 year ago
I_am_Spartacus
Yeah, whatever man. Like a little scientologist you still went thorugh my profile to try to find dirt on me to use when trying to score a point against me on the internet. You might want to joing seeing how you're already ahead of the curve already.

"I think I remain pretty calm after your hateful childish and shitty comment. This debate was started just because I wanted to try something different."

Your low self-esteem is reeking at the moment by your evident need to defend your wounded ego and explain yourself and your blatant need of being "right" in this insignificant bickering on the internet. You trying to vindicate yourself in this context makes you look like a meek little AvPD scientologist.
Posted by yeezhwen 1 year ago
yeezhwen
Do I seriously need to start a debate with you right here? I think I remain pretty calm after your hateful childish and shitty comment. This debate was started just because I wanted to try something different. I can say that I have a much better life than u do. Are you so bored that you responded to my comment so quickly, and devoted the time to write all this, just to express your hate? You are the one who needs to get a life.
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 1 year ago
I_am_Spartacus
I wasn't even addressing you in the first place but the other commentor, but I guess your peevish emotions got the better of you for not reading in the context before you blurt out your emotional tantrum. Why are you writing here in the first place if you've got so much better things to do? And have you actually gone to the trouble of investigating my debate history so as to "prepare" your emotionally strident attack against me? How pathetic. Seems like a lot of work was poured into you commenting back to me to score a point on the internet. What a quick-tempered loser you are. Get a life.
Posted by yeezhwen 1 year ago
yeezhwen
Also, as far as i know, in your previous debates, you also gave little to no arguments. you probably forfeited so many rounds and still come here and act like you are some professional debater. Don't you have some sense of shame? look at yourself before you comment others, idiot.
Posted by yeezhwen 1 year ago
yeezhwen
To: the "genius" who keeps commenting here

Who is it that is taking up too much space in the internet? I can't believe after weeks you are still here giving comments. Mind you, i have much better things to do than to debate here with you. And, you are in no position to tell me what i can do or not, i can continue debating here as long as i want.

Best regards, stupid person
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 1 year ago
I_am_Spartacus
Best regards to you stupid person
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 1 year ago
I_am_Spartacus
For an uneducated person like yourself I don't doubt you find this too intellectual too grasp. It does in no way bolster your reputation by flaunting your inanity to the world so for your own sake please don't. We all just think you're a stupid person who occupies too much space here on the internet so we'd appreciate if you would just keep your mouth shut in the future.

Best regards, stupid person
Posted by Shanaya14611 1 year ago
Shanaya14611
So boring .....so Boring!!!!!!
Posted by I_am_Spartacus 1 year ago
I_am_Spartacus
I should have asked for the terms of this debate sooner but for the sake of fairness I will not make a long, in-depth first post. This debate is quite broad and all-encompassing and would require at least four debate rounds. Do I take it we have a round for conclusion with no rebuttals?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 1 year ago
medv4380
yeezhwenI_am_SpartacusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff