- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
1. Greenland is not the globe.
2. The article says nothing about man-made global warming, not a word.
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not make that claim.
It is proven, you are correct, and has been for nearly two decades now.
Joe gets these articles expecting no one will read the whole thing because he has some weird hard-on for all right-wing propaganda.
The article is about Greenland specifically, not the globe, and an unusual rate of ice melt in Greenland, even more ice melting than in other areas.
"The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "
That Greenland had accelerated ice melt even above what has been caused by man-made global warming is the subject, the subject is not that global warming does not exist. The article does not even make that claim.
Kotkin likes to distract people and play to class and other prejudices with inflammatory language about “hip and cool” places versus suburbs and young sophistos, trendoids, and gays versus real families.
As does Joe, it goes on...
It’s interesting, in that context, to note that his recent report on “post-familialism” was supported by the right-wing philanthropist Howard Ahmanson. Kotkin’s report credits Ahmanson as a “philanthropist”, but Salon dubs him “the avenging angel of the religious right,” a large funder of anti-gay and anti-evolution group and causes.
Basically it's an anti-gay anti social-evolution article. Downtown areas have been crumbling. Young creative types, some of whom happen to be gay and who at the very least don't hold these prejudices, have been revitalizing them. Joe, the religious right, and far right conservatives see GAY! and get scared and feel some sort of primitive need to discredit anything connected, whether it's based in reality or not.
But the fact is that these were areas which were dead, and now they are alive. They were areas which were draining their perspective cities, and now they are giving more than they take.
So now you want to exert you will on other nations. How liberal of you.
Fair trade is a liberal issue, true. Republicans tend to support exploiting humans in other countries for greater profits for global corporations. You are off subject of course, nice try though.
An impossible task because America is not the world. But local legislation can start without having a cause determined for the Earth being hotter
I was speaking specifically of the US, which I make clear. Why you would even try to twist that to mean world legislation I do not know, outside of desperation perhaps because you see how faulty your arguments are becoming. And I never said that the US (so you don't try to twist around my words again) could not have legislation without global warming being an issue, but global warming is an issue and there is no reason it should not be an issue.
What it sounds like is you object to being incorrect about global warming, or you object to others being incorrect about global warming, so you would like me to ignore it. You will notice the title of the debate is More proof Global Warming is a hoax however, so I will not ignore that as the primary issue here.
7 paragraphs and
I notice when someone is loosing a debate as you are, they begin taking snipits of what I say in order to better fit their own argument, which at this point is not even on topic in your case. 7 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, the point is that the subject is global warming, and so the subject of my response was and is global warming. That there are other reasons besides global warming to pursue cleaner energy does not in any way detract from the validity of global warming as an issue.
This indicates that the first reasons you are about to list are not very important.
It certainly does not.
Unless of course it is your misinformation.
So you are going from agreeing that global warming is true, to now saying that it is not. This supports my point that information about it is important. It does not support your point.
The "global warming" deniers have their fingers in their ears and aren't listening. Your side has your fingers in your ears and isn't listening. Neither one of you deserves to be correct.
Again I'll point you to the title of this debate, and remind you that is the subject.
And being correct or not is not a matter of what one deserves, it is a matter of facts.
How about the fact that China causes massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to be produced meaning that the USA changing by itself would not fix a GLOBAL problem.
This is like "Hey, that guy killed someone so me not killing someone isn't going to stop all killings so I should keep killing people." You see how ridiculous the logic is right?
And it is not as if we are powerless in influencing China. Without the U.S. keeping in place, frankly, unfair trading deals, China is not a major economic power at all. Duties based on pollution produced by their manufacturers would quickly improve the the situation. We also have a lot of leverage to get most European countries on board in duties against China based on pollution. For all the of influence we say China has, if they can't sell crap for super cheap to nations like the U.S., they are in trouble.
Accepting that man made global warming exists is worthless. That is not a solution.
It is the first step toward a solution. You cannot push legislation to stop global warming when a large chunk of the country has been misinformed by the oil industry.
You have an entire paragraph on the reasons why the US should switch to clean energy and you skim over it like it is nothing. If you push the agenda that switching to clean energy helps NO MATTER WHAT you could get both sides to agree on something.
I framed my argument within the debate. The debate is on existence of it so I "skimmed' matters that did not pertain directly to existence. Though really a paragraph isn't skimming I don't think, when the entire reply is only like 4 paragraphs.
Instead people like you insist on making sure that silly people like Joe admit that global warming is true because you aren't really interested in solving the problem.
What about trying to convince "silly people like Joe" that global warming is real necessarily means one is not interested in solving global warming? You can both try to convince silly people it is real, and be interested in solving the problem. They are not mutually exclusive. It seems there would be a strong correlation in the exact opposite direction.
This issue is stupid, why is there fighting over what caused the Earth to be warmer? If pollution is bad let's cut our pollution. If clean energy will free us from oil nations let's move to clean energy. Why does the reason to do things have to be so complicated it is at the global level? Both sides are stupid on this issue.
It is precisely because many do not believe in the cause of global warming, that many are not interested in solving the problem. So, when more people are informed we are more likely to take real steps toward clean energy. It is necessary in a large representative republic that a large majority of people want something, especially if what they want means very powerful and influential entities would make a little less money.
Unfortunately 51% isn't even enough due to Congress' new habit of obstruction. So dispelling misinformation is an important part of that.
Greenhouses occur naturally from carbon, at the pace carbon naturally decomposes.
Greenhouses build up faster when we accelerate that process.
The article points out that if it should happen that we were in a warming cycle (which is not known and many believe we should be in a cooling cycle now) but even if we were in a warming cycle, and an extreme warming cycle, it does not come even close to the pace at which the earth is warming.
The article points out that natural causes for the pace of warmth have been eliminated. The only cause left is man-made.
The reason this is important, even outside of the facts that clean energy means more local jobs, less power in the hands of nations like Iran, and less expensive heating and cooling and driving, outside of those common sense things anyone should support less pollution whether they believe in science or think its the most elaborate and pointless hoax in history,
The speed of warmth shifts weather causing flooding in places that we humans are not prepared deal with, it causes droughts in areas where we humans grow our food, it means lost coastline where we humans build houses, and it means warmer oceans and bodies of water killing off species we depend on for food (or our food's food) because evolution of these species cannot adjust fast enough to survive the new temperatures.
So, really there's no reason to be a global warming denier, even for those who think science is evil or whatever.
Apparently not, since that is not what the article is implying at all.
Although the most recent decade (2000-2009) isn't the warmest of the Holocene, it's not too far off. The authors estimate that it was warmer than 82 percent of the decades of the last 12,000 years. "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend," the authors conclude. And based on records of things like solar output, ocean currents, and volcanic eruptions, there's little indication of anything other than greenhouse gasses that could have caused this sort of reversal.
Given the greenhouse emissions we've already produced, the authors also conclude that we're certain to exceed the warmest decades of the past sometime this century. The only scenario that would keep us from doing so is if we froze emissions around a decade ago. The real question seems to be how much we'll exceed these temperatures by. Continuing along an emissions trajectory similar to the one we're currently on, they suggest, means "by 2100, global average temperatures will probably be five to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."
In other words, it will be dramatically warmer than any point of the entire 12,000 year interglacial period, and no amount of statistical noise could account for the difference.
The ability of Republicans to read something and think it means the very opposite of what is said is truly amazing.
Is it because Republicans are on average sever IQ points dumber? Or is it simply denial given your ideology's many self-contradictions?
Seriously. I'm curious how this happens so often with so many of you.