The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

The political science of climate change

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 2 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 723 times Debate No: 58702
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Max.Wallace

Con

The propaganda issued by the IPCC in respect to 97% of scientists believing in AGW is nothing but a very successful attempt to strike fear into gullible people so they will fall in line willingly with Agenda 21. This is the science of creating green guilt, nothing more. Global warming is a term used by the modern eugenicists to reduce the population of people they see as fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers, aka Americans. Meanwhile they transfer American wealth to overpopulated countries in the name of humanitarianism, while the middle class in America gets destroyed. AGW believers are nothing but minions of the globalist elite who are using their wealth to suffocate freedom so they can have the very small population of elitists they so desire. Are you on board with Agenda 21?
MrJosh

Pro


I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate. In his initial comments, CON has made several claims, which I will list here for clarity’s sake:


1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues propaganda in an attempt to “strike fear into gullible people,” with the purpose of “creating green guilt.”


2) The phrase 'global warming’ is used by “modern eugenicists” for the purpose of reducing the population of the United States, which they see as “fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers.”


3) Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are being used as pawns by the “globalist elite” who are trying to limit the world population to those like themselves.


These are some quite interesting claims; I look forward to CON providing evidence for them.


Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Con

Sorry, but your response is nothing more then repeating what I said which is no response at all in essence. The fact is that the IPCC has released junk data as gospel truth repeatedly, and therefore we have to look at who is funding them and what their motivation is. The philosophy of the elites like Soros, Gates, Strong and Gore is that the earth is overpopulated, and the basis behind that philosophy is that eugenics is the cure, either by taxation or by policies such as encouraging abortion. Could you try a little harder please, or do you just expect everyone to follow the 97% religion because they have endowed themselves with the ability to predict the future? The expert weather forecasters can't tell us if it will rain tomorrow with great accuracy, but we are expected to believe a small group of ideologues from the IPCC can predict something as complex as how the climate will change? Please.....
MrJosh

Pro

You are correct, as I noted in my comments for the first round, I was simply restating your points for clarity. I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go.

Green Guilt

CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence.

Eugenicists

CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists.” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming.

Globalist Elite

Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11].

CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well.

Final Thoughts

The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round.

Sources:

(Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts.)

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch...
[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
[4] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[5] http://www.pnas.org...
[6] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[7] http://academic.evergreen.edu...
[8] http://www.ecd.bnl.gov...
[9] http://courses.washington.edu...
[10] http://www.nature.com...
[11] http://www.geneseo.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Con

That was great, very professional. As I am in no way a polished or trained debater I relish the opportunity to rebut your arguments. It is truly fun to mix it up with the ivory tower crowd! I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but maybe next time. I will attempt to put this in a format that is organized, but please forgive me if you get confused.

Green Guilt

Is there anyone on the planet that would disagree that the IPCC is the driving force behind the religion of AGW, even fabricating, or manipulating data in order to prove their foregone conclusion? Here is a good article explaining the problems with the IPCC.

http://wattsupwiththat.com...

See, they actually are political, but when people only follow what .gov tells them they miss these things. As far as green guilt goes, it is part of the religion of Climate Change, kind of like sinning. Teach the children to feel guilty, especially here in America and they will follow blindly.

Eugenicists
A couple articles on that.

http://www.edie.net...
http://www.thenewamerican.com...

Who are the elite globalist eugenicists? Here they are.

http://truthstreammedia.com...

By the way you never addressed Agenda 21, the bible of the modern eugenic billionaires.

The Globalist Elites

Bill Gates and Soros, two of the most influential Soros even helped the Nazis confiscate Jews property during the holocaust and has no remorse, in his own words.
https://www.youtube.com...
http://thearrowsoftruth.com...
http://say-no-to-agenda-21-de-population.blogspot.com...

I do appreciate that you cited scholarly articles however I doubt that you personally could prove any part of them except that they were written by folks that desperately want to keep their high paying, world traveling, taxpayer subsidized jobs, and are willing to write almost anything to make the politicians happy, and who buys the politicians? The Elites.

I will go further into Agenda 21 as I really would like your input on this. My take is that United Nations Agenda 21 is a soft tyranny based eugenic plan formed with the blessing of Gates, Soros and their henchmen that live above the world in partnership with entities like the UN and The World Bank. The plan is very complicated, well thought out, and full of players/minions that think of nothing except how they can get a big paycheck from these guys. Agenda 21 starts with creating the illusion that humans are wrecking the planet with CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, measured in parts per MILLION, and is actually very beneficial to plants. It is plant food, and is barely detectable, except it is the perfect measure to justify their energy reducing actions. There is a man named Maurice Strong who may be one of the most influential players you never heard of, but he is very powerful and has been pulling strings at the UN for a long long time. Here is some background.

http://www.infowars.com...

I prefer you watch the videos of Soros and Strong as their own words convict themselves as eugenic minded elites. By the way the industrialized world he is talking about dismantling is us, so park your carbon spewing conveyance, and ride a bike to work, or maybe you do already. The goal of agenda 21 is to move the vast majority of population into cities and to reclaim the land for use only by elites and their slaves, like the ones Marx wanted to till the fields. Are you familiar with Marxism? All of the elites are into it big time, even our president. Anyway, I want to give you a chance to rebut so I will leave you with all that, make of it what you will and please do not hesitate to challenge me and we can go 5 or more rounds if you are interested, I love to challenge the establishment. Thanks!
MrJosh

Pro

I thank CON for offering his comments this final round. I will do my best to address everything that is relevant, since I have been accused of not doing so.

Agenda 21

CON has accused me of not addressing Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a document prepared by the United Nations which offers suggestions on how do develop in a sustainable fashion [1][2]. It is a non-binding report full of policy suggestions of the type the UN frequently puts out [3][4]. Of course, he is correct. I did not address it because it really doesn’t fit in with any of the resolutions being discussed here.

Green Guilt: the IPCC

I would like to thank CON for providing some support for his claims. Unfortunately, I find his source lacking. I started to rebut each point on the page CON linked to, but realized that I would quickly be over my character limit. This sort of conspiracy theory website is akin to a Gish Gallop. Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data and reports are used for political purposes, that there are discussion on how best to present the position of the material, or that contributors to papers are sometimes determined by internal politics, does not mean that the IPCC’s purpose is to mislead people via Green Guilt.

Eugenics

Again, I would like to thank CON for bringing some sources to bear, even though they are again quite lacking. Recognizing that overpopulation is a real problem [5], and noting that it has an impact on other human caused problems, such as global warming, is not eugenics. Even if there were some nut-jobs proposing things such as CON suggests in the 1970s [6], this does not mean that eugenicists are prevalent today, or that they are in positions of power. Finally, that some wealthy individuals promote responsible parenthood and family planning options is not eugenics.

The Elites

It seems that CON has dropped the argument that so called “elites” are manipulated into believing that global warming is a real threat.

Loose Ends

CON has made several claims at the end of his comments that are irrelevant. He has attacked the scientific enterprise, expanded his conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, and even made the case that increases in CO2 may be beneficial. I will not be addressing these because they are not relevant to the resolutions being discussed.

Final Thoughts

CON made three main arguments in the first round, all of which I have addressed. The burden to demonstrate these resolutions sits with CON, and he has not met his burden, as I have shown. I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate; I don’t generally debate deniers, it has been interesting.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[2] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org...
[3]http://www.slate.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://howmany.org...
[6] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Debating satan is fun, I can die, THEY will not. selfish bastard THEY be.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
PRO dismissed my sources, and I dismiss his. Wholeheartedly.
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
the ostriches are winning!
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
Are you studying my round so you can decide which words to regurgitate? lol!
Posted by Max.Wallace 3 years ago
Max.Wallace
I contend it exists as a natural earth cycle, and not influenced by humans significantly. If you believe it is true that CO2 is a destructive emission then please debate!
Posted by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Is this a debate about weather or not GW exists?
Posted by rings48 3 years ago
rings48
I would debate against you but I dont meet criteria.....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Max.WallaceMrJoshTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources. Sci journals trump infowars.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 3 years ago
TruthHurts
Max.WallaceMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy Pro ballot. Pro correctly calls Con out on lack of argumentation and, later, lack of objective source material. Con does not provide any justification for his claims, other than conspiracy theory sites, and Pro provides good sources and arguments to doubt Con's claims. Con has not provided sufficient doubt that climate change is some illegitimate plot conjured up by fear mongers, and Pro has demonstrated that, regardless of Con's claims, we have little reason to doubt the authenticity and validity of the data.