The Instigator
believer_720
Pro (for)
Tied
15 Points
The Contender
toiletlipz
Con (against)
Tied
15 Points

Global Warming will not destroy Earth, and should not be so quickly acted against.

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  
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: 2/20/2008 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,850 times Debate No: 2817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

believer_720

Pro

Alright. I'm going to start by wishing whoever my opponent may be, good luck.

There are many reasons Global Warming should not be so quickly acted against. The main base of my argument will beneficial. Yes, that does sound a bit crazy, but allow me to explain.

The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times. This is also known as the Little Climate Optimum. Here, the world was much warmer, and civilizations thrived. Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth.

And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit.

Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere.

I would be willing to cite my sources if the need arises.

Prove me wrong.

And I hope for an interesting debate.
toiletlipz

Con

Believer,

Your thesis seems to be "there are many reasons why global climate change should not be so quickly acted against."

Let me begin by picking apart the basis of your argument, this would be the statement you made concerning the Little Climate Optimum. You have stated, "The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times."

This statement is actually incorrect. From 1860-1900 global land tempuratures have had an increase of .75 degrees C according to the instrumental tempurature record. Beginning in 1979, land tempuratures have increased twice as fast as ocean tempuratures. It has actually been thought that 1 to 2 thousand years before the period of 1860 that climate tempuratures have remained relatively stable. In consideration to the little climate optimum (it is actually called the Medieval Climate Optimum) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made the following statement, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."(http://www.grida.no...)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also said, "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect...records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...)

It seems that the other considerations you made about this period, such as "Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth." are simply spurious.

you also said,

"And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit."

As beneficial as climate change may be to plants, it would be simply horrible to human beings. It is not the warming of the planet that is dangerous, however, it is the effect it has on arctic glaciers. When temperatures increase glaciers begin to melt, thus causing a number of effects.

1.)Glacial retreat- a lack of equilibrium in which throws off glaicier climates.
2.) Arctic shrinkage- the more the glaciers melt, the more quickly they begin to melt.
3.)sea-level rise- states, countries, continents begin to disappear, simple as that.

Among other things as glaciers begin to melt the proportion of salt and fresh water that maintains stable weather patterns will be out of equilibrium. This could result in increased flooding and precipitation, droughts, and the frequency and intensity of other various weather patterns (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. etc.).

"Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere."

The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860.

We live in a country where we operate on a basis of risk management. Let's think of some examples,

War with vietname ($600 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT communism would take over the world.

War with Iraq ($204 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT they had nuclear weapons so we attacked first (or something)

Developement of the Atom Bomb(billions of trillions if you consider the arms race that it began)- THOUGHT hitler was going to make one first.

Why is it that in most instances the Unites States takes pre-emptive action on the grounds of PREVENTION? Because if we can stop it before it starts than we won't find ourselves in a place where its just too late to do anything.

Thus your claim is that we should not act quickly. I believe we should...wether its happening or not. Climate Change has the potential of ending the world. With that being said, let's weigh our options...

Do nothing, nothing happens- Everyone is happy.

Do nothing, something happens- Everyone is dead, essentially. There are droughts, economic turmoil, hurricanes, floods, etc. etc. Imagine your worst nightmare.

Do something, nothing happens- Economy takes a hit, but its repairable. In comparison to doing nothing and something happening, I think its a pretty comfortable sacrafice to make.

Do something, something happens- Everyone is happy.

Considering these options, and that we've spent billions on other potential threats in the past...then why not this one?
Debate Round No. 1
believer_720

Pro

Alright. I think, from seeing your argument, this debate will come down to if this is really a threat to worry about.

I'm going to start with your statement about the Medieval Climate Optimum. I admit, I was a bit unspecific when I stated that. What I meant to say was, the last time there was a major increase in temperature. The other instances of warming you mentioned are just building up to where we are now.

As you probably know, the Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Climate Optimum. And, although it may not be entirely documented, it is very likely this would have happened with or without humans. The earth just works like that. Take the Ice Age for example. After the Little Ice Age, there was a period of warmth, as to 'recover' from the cold times. The Earth isn't known to have experienced a major Ice Age other than THE Ice Age, so we can't find a pattern in that. But if we look at the Little Ice Age, we may still be recovering from the Ice Age millions of years ago.

In response to your comment about the Winter being less harsh, the population increasing, etc, you have yet to prove they are untrue. You have yet to prove them untrue. You acknowledge the Medieval Climate Optimum happened, therefore there simply isn't a reason they would be untrue.

Despite many of the myths, there isn't as much evidence that disasters will increase as you would think. Warming will not cause a significant increase in temperatures around the Equator. Only closer to the Poles. There will not be a significant increase in natural disasters, because most disasters will happen near the Equator, anyway.

Would it not be true that, heat would cause evaporation? And evaporation would cause precipitation? And precipitation would combat droughts?

On the topic of floods, man has time to prepare. There is a good chance it will be another, at the least, 50 years until we will know for a fact our cities are in danger of flooding. As naive as it sounds, I'm sure a large wall, much like the levees that are used to protect many hurricane-prone areas, could effectively protect our vulnerable cities from floods.

Reports have shown that the ocean levels have increased at a steady rate for the past century or so. Every decade, another inch. Simple as that. There are no reports of any drastic rise in the sea levels since the Global Warming theory was released. Simple as that.

It is true that the glaciers would begin to melt, but, although there has not been much evidence of this so far, I've done a bit of research on the subject. Heat would cause more precipitation. More precipitation would, scientifically speaking, add on to the glaciers.

"The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860."

Climates have been rising and rising long before the 18th century. Chances are, it was hardly significant enough to document back then. CO2 is a minor factor in the entire global warming picture. All of these energy efficient cars and other environmentally-friendly solutions like that, I will admit they are great for the environment. But, there is little man can do to prevent Global Warming from happening. Simple as that.

I eagerly await your response.
toiletlipz

Con

toiletlipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
believer_720

Pro

Alrighty then. My argument still stands. And, it looks like I still need 100 characters to post this. Alright, I look forward to your rebuttal.
toiletlipz

Con

toiletlipz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
Gore's Convenient LIE:

http://www.arboristsite.com...
Posted by seldumonde 9 years ago
seldumonde
The debate is basically over anyway. The most recent temperature data show the world COOLED massively in the past year, negating all of the supposed increase. Add to that record cold temperatures, record snow coverage, snow in Baghdad... the list goes on of easily found examples to disprove the insane notion that the Earth is getting hotter and we're all going to melt.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mjoveny 8 years ago
mjoveny
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cool_rad_b 9 years ago
cool_rad_b
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by moderate84 9 years ago
moderate84
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by believer_720 9 years ago
believer_720
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dxpilot 9 years ago
dxpilot
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 9 years ago
Vi_Veri
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
believer_720toiletlipzTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30