True Debate #6 *Final Debate* - independent_thinker2002 vs TOT - Climate Change - Page 3

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-17-06, 05:56 PM

<<<CONTINUED>>>

Quote:

Water power
Main article: Water power
Energy in water can be harnessed and used, in the form of motive energy or temperature differences. Since water is about a thousand times heavier than air, even a slow flowing stream of water can yield great amounts of energy.
There are many forms:
Hydroelectric energy, a term usually reserved for hydroelectric dams.
Tidal power, which captures energy from the tides in horizontal direction. Tides come in, raise water levels in a basin, and tides roll out. The water must pass through a turbine to get out of the basin.
Tidal stream power, which does the same vertically, capturing the stream of water as it is pushed around the world by the tides.
Wave power, which uses the energy in waves. The waves will usually make large pontoons go up and down in the water, leaving an area with no waves in the "shadow" of the power plant.
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), which uses the temperature difference between the warmer surface of the ocean and the cool (or cold) lower recesses. To this end, it employs a cyclic heat engine.
Deep lake water cooling, although not technically an energy generation method, can save a lot of energy in summer. It uses submerged pipes as a heat sink for climate control systems. Lake-bottom water is a year-round local constant of about 4 ° C.
Blue energy, the reverse of desalination. A difference in salt concentration exists between seawater and river water. This gradient can be utilized to generate electricity by separating positive and negative ions by ion specific membranes. Brackish water is produced. This form of energy is in research, costs are not the issue, tests on pollution of the membrane are in progress.At this moment it is predicted that if everything works out, 1/3 of the electricity needs in the Netherlands can be covered with this system.(2005)
Hydroelectric power is probably not a major option for the future of energy production in the developed nations because most major sites within these nations with the potential for harnessing gravity in this way are either already being exploited or are unavailable for other reasons such as environmental considerations. However, micro hydro may be an option for small scale applications such as single farms, homes or small businesses.
Building a dam often involves flooding large areas of land, this can change habitats so immensely that this risk of endangering local and non local wildlife is great. For example, since damming and redirecting the waters of the Platte River in Nebraska for agricultural and energy use, many native and migratory birds such as the Piping Plover and Sandhill Crane have become increasingly endangered.
The other methods of energy generation (and cooling) have had varying degrees of success in the field. Wave and tidal power prove hard to tap, while OTEC has not been field tested on a large scale. Water power energy is generally considered to be renewable.
Critics of hydroelectric dams state that they may produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane from rotting vegetation. In some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels [1]. Dam failures, while rare, are potentially serious - the Banqiao Dam failure in China killed 171,000 people, many more than the immediate death toll in the Chernobyl disaster.

Wind energy
Main article: Wind power
As the sun heats up the Earth unevenly, winds are formed. The kinetic energy in the wind can be used to run wind turbines, some capable of producing 5 MW of power. The power output is a function of the cube of the wind speed, so such turbines generally require a wind in the range 5.5 m/ (20 km/h), and in practice relatively few land areas have significant prevailing winds. Luckily, offshore or at high altitudes, the winds are much more constant.
There are now many thousands of wind turbines operating in various parts of the world, with utility companies having a total capacity of 59,322 MW [2] [3]. Capacity in this case means maximum possible output which does not count load factor.
New wind farms and offshore wind parks are being planned and built all over the world. This has been the most rapidly-growing means of electricity generation at the turn of the 21st century and provides a complement to large-scale base-load power stations. Most deployed turbines produce electricity about 25% of the time (load factor 25%), but some reach 35%. The load factor is generally higher in winter. It means that a 5 MW turbine can have average output of 1.7 MW in the best case.
Global winds long-term technical potential is believed to be 5 times current global energy consumption or 40 times current electricity demand. This requires 12.7% of all land area, or that land area with Class 3 or greater potential at a height of 80 meters. It assumes that the land is covered with 6 large wind turbines per square kilometer. Offshore resources experience mean wind speeds of ~90% greater than that of land, so offshore resources could contribute substantially more energy. [4] This number could also increase with higher altitude ground based or airborne wind turbines. [5]
Wind strengths vary and thus cannot guarantee continuous power. Some estimates suggest that 1,000 MW of wind generation capacity can be relied on for just 333 MW of continuous power. While this might change as technology evolves, advocates have suggested incorporating wind power with other power sources, or the use of energy storage techniques, with this in mind. It is best used in the context of a system that has significant reserve capacity such as hydro, or reserve load, such as a desalination plant, to mitigate the economic effects of resource variability.
Wind power is renewable and is one of the few energy sources that contributes to greenhouse gas mitigation, because it removes energy directly from the atmosphere without producing net emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane (others greenhouse gas mitigating energy sources include solar thermal and ocean thermal).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

FallingPianos · 05-17-06, 06:01 PM

posts are supposed to be 3 hours apart. slow down guys.

independent_thinker2002 · 05-18-06, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I am not proposing radical change at all I am proposing a gradual shift off of our fossil fuel dependency. Like I said the change will not come over night we must take a gradual pragmatic approach to the situation.

Is there a "gradual, pragmatic" approach to national security? Some might see that as being "blase" about the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

It is not laughable sir unlike your assertion that human activities are causing global warming it is well established fact:

Quote:

Statement of Margo Thorning, Ph.D.,
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist
American Council for Capital Formation
Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
March 25, 1999

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

As for your assertion that Kyoto wouldn't destroy our economy I have already proven that is a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I'm not proposing anything I'm merely stating the facts and the facts say that Kyoto would have destroyed our economy.

What fact have you stated? You are quoting someone from a think tank lobbying group paid for by ExxonMobil. This is hardly a credible, independent source. Please don't tell me a lobbyist testifying in Washington D.C. is supposed to be accepted as fact. Read about it here: www.climateimc.org

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

There is no position for me to debunk you have only shown correlation not causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Umm don't you need to know the cause of a problem before you can propose a solution to that problem? I mean isn't that the very essence of problem solving?

You are like a parrot with the "correlation/causation" thing. Tell me, do firemen figure out what started a fire before they fight it? Knowing the cause can be very helpful. It is not always necessary in order to take action against the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

So the effectiveness of the proposal is a red herring? So good intentions are going to end global warming now?

This is a debate about climate change. This is not about whether the Kyoto Treaty is working or not. Kyoto's effectiveness is irrelevant to the fact that we need to take action and use the delicate art of diplomacy to have the world join us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Ya well good luck getting getting China and India on board with a program which stipulations they would actually have to abide by. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but China, India, and yes even the U.S. are still soveriegn nations who will always act in their own self interests, I'm trying to be pragmatic about this situation but you're being idealistic and it's clouded your reason and your judgement.

The art of diplomacy is what it will take to convince the world to join us. I like how you try to discredit me by questioning my "reason and judgement". I don't think that you are being pragmatic as much as you are limited by your lack of vision. Great things can only be accomplished if they are first dreamed of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

O.K. then what % of global warming is caused by human beings? To what extent would ending our consumption of fossil fuels curb the current trends of climate shift? These are the questions that must be answered before you go around proposing half cocked schemes that could very well destroy our economic prosperity and global hegemony.

How much is a good question. According to www.ncdc.noaa.gov :

Quote:

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

These are the questions that must be answered before you go around proposing half cocked schemes that could very well destroy our economic prosperity and global hegemony.

Half-cocked? I laugh in your general direction. Demonizing me by inferring that I am a crazy man bent on destruction of our country is disrespectful and couldn't be futher from the truth. This is a debate tactic that has outlived it's effectiveness and has been overused these days.

<<<continued below>>>

independent_thinker2002 · 05-18-06, 04:21 AM

<<<continued from above>>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

How so exactly? There is money to be made in nuclear energy initiatives and renewable energy sources. When you speak of Kyoto you speak of heavy governmental regulation and penalties for infractions of the stipulations, I on the other hand speak of economic incentives and governmental investments in nuclear power and renewable energy sources.

The change in the infrastucture will be expensive. Imagine the cost of changing gas stations to Hydrogen stations. You were the first to speak of Kyoto. I had not brought Kyoto up. And yes, we do need heavy govenment regulation and penalties for infractions of the stipulations. We need to make a serious affort to eliminate greenhouse gasses. We aren't going to have nuclear cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

We can't control mother nature anymore than we can control the sun from rising.

We may not be able to control Mother Nature, but we sure can, and have, effect Mother Nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Again this is just another blatant appeal to emotion that has no basis in reality. The current global warming scare tactics are not truth motivated they are agenda driven and politically motivated. Global warming is big bussiness scientists get grants to promote their pseudoscience and politicians get votes by playing off the fear of the naive unwashed masses. And let's not forget the profits incurred by propaganda flicks; such as, "The Day After Tomorrow," and "An Inconvenient Truth."

Oh please! Tell me which lobby do the scientists work for. Is it the Sun lobby? The Wind lobby? This conspiracy theory has absolutely no basis in fact. What "pseudoscience" are they trying to promote? Psychology? As far as movies go, their agenda is to entertain and make lots of money. You say that my claim has no basis in reality. Are we to just take your word for it? You don't seem to be proving my claim to be false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I propose a pragmatic shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, the U.S. can only control what goes on within its own borders unless of course my opponent is in fact proposing global governance which would be right in tow with the leftist tendencies of the radical environmentalists.

No shift would be instantaneous. It would have to be a slow, steady shift. Are you even reading my posts? I propose using diplomacy and he wants to link me to some crazy imperialist conqueror? We wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. We would convince them that it is in their best interest to join. We would use facts and diologue. We wouldn't need to ad hominem attack them into submission, which would be right in tow with the rightist tendencies of the radical evangelicals. See? We could play this game all week. Let's not and say we did, huh? This is not a left vs. right issue. Mother Nature doesn't care who you vote for and neither does science.

While we make the slow transition to alternative energy we must start decreasing the emission of greenhouse gasses. I agree with using alternative energy entirely, as soon as it is feaseable. I realize that it will not be an overnight transition. When I question how "tried and true" renewable energy is, I am talking about using it to fully support our energy demand. We have not tried that yet. Yes, we could build more nuclear power plants. It has been 20 years since we last built one.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-18-06, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

Is there a "gradual, pragmatic" approach to national security? Some might see that as being "blase" about the matter.

And some may see radical approaches as negligent and dangerous.

Quote:

What fact have you stated? You are quoting someone from a think tank lobbying group paid for by ExxonMobil. This is hardly a credible, independent source. Please don't tell me a lobbyist testifying in Washington D.C. is supposed to be accepted as fact. Read about it here: www.climateimc.org

And this is what we here in the bussiness of debates refer to as an ad-hominem attack instead of attacking the points made by the source you attack the source itself. Debate the points sir not the source. That was the testimony in front of a Senate Committee and they were under oath when they delivered it, the evidence is gathered by numerous sources for example:

The U.S. Department of Energy and The Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis

If you care debate the facts by all mean do so but your out of hand dismissal of a well researched source is simply an ad-hominem fallacy of logic.

Quote:

You are like a parrot with the "correlation/causation" thing. Tell me, do firemen figure out what started a fire before they fight it? Knowing the cause can be very helpful. It is not always necessary in order to take action against the issue.

No, actually we know that fire feeds off oxygen and that in order to put out a fire we have to deprive that fire of oxygen by spraying it with water, we, also, know that grease fires will not go out with water and will actually get worse when you spray them with water and that you must use sand or a chemical extinguisher instead. You see first you have to learn the cause of something before you can figure out the solution or your solution may in fact turn out to be worse than the orginal problem

Quote:

This is a debate about climate change. This is not about whether the Kyoto Treaty is working or not. Kyoto's effectiveness is irrelevant to the fact that we need to take action and use the delicate art of diplomacy to have the world join us.

So take action regardless if it is effective or not? Good strategy.

Quote:

The art of diplomacy is what it will take to convince the world to join us. I like how you try to discredit me by questioning my "reason and judgement". I don't think that you are being pragmatic as much as you are limited by your lack of vision. Great things can only be accomplished if they are first dreamed of.

Some of the worst things in the world were started with the best of intentions. And your blanket word "diplomacy" still doesn't have a basis in the real world, tell me how exactly you're going to use diplomacy to convince India and China to destroy their economies? We're all ears.

Quote:

How much is a good question. According to www.ncdc.noaa.gov :

That's not the questions I asked sir, everyone already knows that humans are adding to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere the questions I asked were to what % is that human activity leading to global warming and to what extent will ending usage of fossil fuels change the current trend of global warming?

Quote:

Half-cocked? I laugh in your general direction. Demonizing me by inferring that I am a crazy man bent on destruction of our country is disrespectful and couldn't be futher from the truth. This is a debate tactic that has outlived it's effectiveness and has been overused these days.

Well your plan to end fossil fuel consumption without taking into consideration the effects it will have on the economy is indeed half cocked especially when you can't tell me with certainty that human beings are causing global warming in the first place.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-18-06, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002

The change in the infrastucture will be expensive.

You say expensive, I say lucrative there is money to be made in creating infrastructure.

Quote:

Imagine the cost of changing gas stations to Hydrogen stations.

Imagine the profits.

Quote:

You were the first to speak of Kyoto. I had not brought Kyoto up. And yes, we do need heavy govenment regulation and penalties for infractions of the stipulations.

And there you have it folks my opponent reveals himself, he speaks of economic penalties and governmenal regulation, and I speak of economic incentives and governmental investment. This is irresponsible idealistic governmental policy. My opponent is willing to destroy gdp and employment growth to eliminate a problem that he can't even say for certain that we are causing in the first place.

"[G]overnment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan

Quote:

We need to make a serious affort to eliminate greenhouse gasses. We aren't going to have nuclear cars.

No we can have electrical cars whose electricity comes from nuclear energy sources.

Quote:

We may not be able to control Mother Nature, but we sure can, and have, effect Mother Nature.

Prove it.

Quote:

Oh please! Tell me which lobby do the scientists work for. Is it the Sun lobby? The Wind lobby? This conspiracy theory has absolutely no basis in fact. What "pseudoscience" are they trying to promote? Psychology? As far as movies go, their agenda is to entertain and make lots of money. You say that my claim has no basis in reality. Are we to just take your word for it? You don't seem to be proving my claim to be false.

There's quite a few actually:

Quote:

Bellona Foundation
BirdLife International
The Center for International Environmental Law
Christian Vegetarian Association - (stresses ecological impact/stewardship)
Earth Charter Organization
Earth Liberation Front
ECOresearch Network - Environmental Communication Online
Environmental Investigation Agency
Environmental Law Association Worldwide
EthicalNetwork.org - Global Online community of environmentalists
Forest Stewardship Council
Foundation for Environmental Education
Friends of the Earth
Gaia Mater (the mother Earth)
Green Cross International
Greenpeace
Friends of nature
iNSnet
The Nature Conservancy
Northwest Earth Institute www.nwei.org
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Worldwatch Institute
World Wildlife Fund
North American Pollinator Protection Campaign
The Xerces Society
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative
Association of Environmental Professionals
Center for a New American Dream
Center for Transportation and the Environment [2]
Earth First!
Environmental Ministry Network
Jigeemu.com
League of Conservation Voters
Izaak Walton League
National Audubon Society
Nature's Classroom
Natural Resources Defense Council
Native Forest Council
National Wildlife Federation
Negative Population Growth
Population Connection
Rainforest Action Network
Resource Renewal Institute
Sea Shepherd
Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)
Sierra Club
TreePeople
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Rewilding Institute
White Kiwi Foundation
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlands Project

<<<<CONTINUED BELOW>>>>

Trajan Octavian Titus · 05-18-06, 01:12 PM

Quote:

No shift would be instantaneous. It would have to be a slow, steady shift. Are you even reading my posts? I propose using diplomacy and he wants to link me to some crazy imperialist conqueror? We wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. We would convince them that it is in their best interest to join. We would use facts and diologue. We wouldn't need to ad hominem attack them into submission, which would be right in tow with the rightist tendencies of the radical evangelicals. See? We could play this game all week. Let's not and say we did, huh? This is not a left vs. right issue. Mother Nature doesn't care who you vote for and neither does science.

Hmm, bringing up radical evangelicals in a discussion about climate change? Relevance to the topic at hand? None? Ya I thought so.

Quote:

While we make the slow transition to alternative energy we must start decreasing the emission of greenhouse gasses. I agree with using alternative energy entirely, as soon as it is feaseable. I realize that it will not be an overnight transition. When I question how "tried and true" renewable energy is, I am talking about using it to fully support our energy demand. We have not tried that yet. Yes, we could build more nuclear power plants. It has been 20 years since we last built one.

Well now we're getting somewhere, yes it needs to be a slow transition to alternative energy, however, for you to say that in the meantime that we should adopt policies that could very well destroy our economy is simply irreresponsible. We need to strike a balance between what is good for the economy and what is good for the environment, to solve the problem of one to the detriment of the other is not a solution at all but rather a catalyst for more problems in the future. A good start and one which could solve much of the problems of air polution in the near future would be to expand our nuclear infrastructure especially when you take into consideration that a country the size of France now has more nuclear reactors than the entire continental United States, however, I wonder if the same environmentalist lobbies who are now so concerned about the effects of fossil fuel consumption on the environment will allow us to expand our nuclear energy source. Somehow I doubt it, though one of the founders of greenpeace Patrick Moore has recently come to same the conclusion that many of us already knew:

Quote:

Going Nuclear

A Green Makes the Case

By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006; Page B01

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

independent_thinker2002 · 05-19-06, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

And this is what we here in the bussiness of debates refer to as an ad-hominem attack instead of attacking the points made by the source you attack the source itself.

Wrong! This is not an ad hominem fallacy. The rules of debate include using credible sources. If you think that someone testifying about economic ramifications of a treaty that is looking to eliminate a fossil fuel giant which they are funded by is credible then I have some swamp land to sell you. How naive do you have to be to think that an oil company is going to say anything good about a program that is going to hurt their record profits? You can't say that this is an impartial opinion. She has a vested interest in forecasting results that are favorable to her financial backers. Your claim of personal attack is untrue. My objection to this being a credible source is directly related to the issue. If I had said something like,"She has had 30 speeding tickets in 15 years, can we trust her judgement on more serious matters?", then you would have something as the two things aren't related.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Debate the points sir not the source.

Are you sure that you want me to debate the points? This is from the Energy Information Administration for the Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/economic.htm

Quote:

Another way to view the macroeconomic effects is by looking at the effects of the carbon reduction cases on the growth rate of the economy, both during the period of implementation and during the early part of the commitment period, from 2005 through 2010, and then over the entire period from 2005 through 2020 (Figures 111 and 112). In all instances, the economy continues to grow, but growth is slower than projected in the reference case. In the reference case, potential and actual GDP grow at 2.0 percent per year from 2005 through 2010. In the 1990+9% case, the growth rate in potential GDP slows to 1.9 percent per year, and the growth rate in actual GDP slows to 1.6 percent per year when the personal income tax rebate is assumed or 1.8 percent per year when the social security tax rebate is assumed. However, through 2020, with the economy rebounding back to the reference case path, there is no appreciable change in the projected long-term growth rate. The results for the 1990+24% and 1990-3% cases are similar.

Is this the "economic disaster" you were speaking of? It will actually grow, just at a slower pace. Wouldn't you agree that taking an action that only slowed growth would be a "pragmatic" plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

No, actually we know that fire feeds off oxygen and that in order to put out a fire we have to deprive that fire of oxygen by spraying it with water, we, also, know that grease fires will not go out with water and will actually get worse when you spray them with water and that you must use sand or a chemical extinguisher instead. You see first you have to learn the cause of something before you can figure out the solution or your solution may in fact turn out to be worse than the orginal problem

Oxygen and grease don't start fires. If it does we need to all hold our breath and quit cooking. In fact you didn't even name what causes a fire. You need a heat source. It could be spark, flame, electrical, physical or chemical reaction. You see, in order to illustrate a point you need to name the cause you are speaking of. And yes, firemen fight fires before they know what the heat source (cause) that ignited the fire is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Some of the worst things in the world were started with the best of intentions. And your blanket word "diplomacy" still doesn't have a basis in the real world, tell me how exactly you're going to use diplomacy to convince India and China to destroy their economies? We're all ears.

Through trade agreements and economic incentives. It's how things get done in the global community. No, they don't always turn out as intended. They also don't always turn out bad either.

So you think that China and India won't stop using fossil fuels? Doesn't that hurt your national security interest? If the United States is the only one to stop using fossil fuels, will that really make us safer? Our enemies are still going to hate us and be well-funded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That's not the questions I asked sir, everyone already knows that humans are adding to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere the questions I asked were to what % is that human activity leading to global warming and to what extent will ending usage of fossil fuels change the current trend of global warming?

The scientists don't have a percentage on the human effect. Here is what the Environmental Protection Agency has on it's web site. www.yosemite.epa.gov

Quote:

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

(Continued)