The Instigator
Callan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
05days19hours55minutes11seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 120257
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Callan

Pro

If global warming will soon lead to worldwide catastrophe, We must seriously pursue geo-engineering to cool the planet.

A recent UN climate report indicates we have 12 years to act until the point of no return. If this is accurate, We cannot wait to take proactive steps.
Leaning

Con

As humankind is not united under one law and government, Enforcement of geo-engineering is not feasible.

In addition our understanding of such technology, It's implications, And long lasting actions make it too dangerous to use. Going back into an ice age would be damaging as well as a heating.

The only solution remaining is to accept the likely effects in the future and to instead individuals, Groups, And governments looking to their own safety and survival in such an event. Adapting to life in the new world. As well as WW3 in which humanity is united under one government and is then able to develop technology to survive the new world, As well as move into space.
Debate Round No. 1
Callan

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate.


You are correct that humankind is not united under one law and government. As such there is really no entity to stop a nation, Such as the U. S. From unilaterally taking action to counteract global warming.


Geo-engineering technology is currently being studied and tests are being conducted. We have seen that volcano eruptions have served to reduce global temperature. Depending on the size of the eruption the cooling effect can last months or years, None have led to an ice age. This is one of the geo-engineering methods I’m advocating, Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), Pumping gasses into the stratosphere to reflect some of the sun's heat.


Keep in mind that the basis of this debate is the assumption that global warming will soon lead to worldwide catastrophe. Meaning that global warming will cripple our environment, Killing millions of people. If you accept this assumption, I think it is foolish to rely on industry around the world to reduce greenhouse gasses. So far we have had treaties and resolutions to reduce greenhouse gasses, Yet global temperatures continue to rise. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.


I’m not saying that we give up on trying to reduce greenhouse gasses, I’m saying that after years of trying unsuccessfully to reduce greenhouse gasses, If we are facing catastrophe, It’s time to include a different approach, Geo-engineering.

Leaning

Con

A catastrophe, Aye, I'll agree the likelihood looms above as likely. And perhaps research into Geo-engineering would not be bad (Of naturally occurring phenomenon and their effects). However, While I agree that no one unified law and government exists on Earth, There is a fragmented and loosely aligned organization and laws. UN rules for example.

Google: theguardian pacific iron fertilisation geoengineering

So I reiterate in a sense, That truly groundbreaking work in the field of geoengineering cannot occur until the world itself is broke apart by catastrophe. In which case, What is 'most important is to consider how we can best survive and gain supremacy in the world that follows. After which geoengineering can take the place it so rightfully deserves in our research.

I admit I do expect your argument to be based in some fashion around this type of article.

Google: nytimes climate volcano geoengineering

But even that article includes a line I shall cherry-pick and take from context.

"Geoengineering has long had an outlaw image among much of the scientific community, Viewed as risky last-resort measures to solve climate problems that would be better dealt with by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Even discussing geoengineering concepts has long been considered taboo among many scientists. "

That's my argument for the difficulty in supporting such an effort politically.

For an argument on dangers, Look only I say to the Dust Bowl of Grapes of Wrath fame. When we tilled too widely and greedily with new technology (And some bad luck of wind and drought)
Look to the Four Pests Campaign of Mao's China.
Yes, Humans attempting wide change on their environment can have benefits, But too so, Risk.

Research and understanding may take place, But far too slow for it to benefit us. Better to accept our hand dealt. Better to plan for blood, Sweat, And tears until we finally overcome and in another time are allowed to again heal the Earth. (Churchill quote)
Debate Round No. 2
Callan

Pro


Survival is one of the strongest instincts we have. If humanity’s survival is threatened on a mass scale, Extraordinary measures would not only become acceptable, They would be demanded. If we are facing an environmental disaster due to global warming, It would be irresponsible to not use all means available to us to avert this disaster.


Many people do not believe that global warming is happening; even more do not believe that climate change is going to lead to global disaster. I can understand why these people would not want to attempt a cure for a problem that they do not believe even exists. However for those who do believe that we are facing catastrophe, It is completely reasonable to want to do everything we can to save the environment.


Leaning

Con

To my opponents round 3, I say of course we may want to try to save the environment. But let us not stretch our necks out upon chopping blocks for lost causes. In an ignoble, Doubting, And selfish world, Is it reasonable to expect others to share your sense of selflessness and noble spirit of sacrifice to risk and attempt a fine deed?

I don't think so. With the odds of society, Science, And rational self interest. It is reasonable for people to looks to their own skins, Own flocks, Own families.

The only way I see your proposal working is for one nation and law to emerge to confront the crisis. Do you really see that happening?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Callan 4 days ago
Callan
Leaning, Thanks for a very civil discussion, It was a pleasure debating with you.
Posted by Leaning 4 days ago
Leaning
In truth Callan, I don't disagree with you. Not really. . . But, I 'am Con in this debate. (Note nothing Leaning says in comments counts against Leaning in debate).
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
Don't worry about it. I was like you once and then found a way to post my argument. .
Posted by Callan 4 days ago
Callan
Thanks Omar, That was it. I just deleted the links and it posted. I appreciate the heads-up.
Posted by omar2345 4 days ago
omar2345
Must be links.

Instead of copying the link do this:
Orange Man Bad (CNN)
Heading outside the bracket. Inside the bracket where it is from.
Posted by Callan 4 days ago
Callan
Something seems to be glitching on this debate. I'm unable to post my round 2 argument. Is it me or has anyone experienced this before? I click Post My Argument, Enter my text, Check spelling and clic Submit. The clock resets but my text doesn't post.
Posted by Callan 5 days ago
Callan
That would be an acceptable argument.
Posted by Leaning 5 days ago
Leaning
Would this be an acceptable argument for round 1?

As humankind is not united under one law and government, Enforcement of geo-engineering is not feasible.

In addition our understanding of such technology, It's implications, And long lasting actions make it too dangerous to use. Going back into an ice age would be damaging as well as a heating.

The only solution remaining is to accept the likely effects in the future and to instead individuals, Groups, And governments looking to their own safety and survival in such an event. Adapting to life in the new world. As well as WW3 in which humanity is united under one government and is then able to develop technology to survive the new world, As well as move into space.
No votes have been placed for this debate.