FallingPianos

the next three posts (Trajan Octavian Titus, independent_thinker2002, and then Trajan Octavian Titus again)are the final posts. this debate will close after the last post, or at 12:00AM EST saturday, whichever comes first.

__________________

Trajan Octavian Titus

No sir that's the very definition of an ad-hominem attack my source was credible it is a bi-partisan not for profit organization as a matter of fact.


They only get donations. Why would they have said it infront of the Senate if it was not credible information, it would be easily checked and if they lied they would be brought up on charges of perjury for lying under oath. I don't think you give the source enough credit.


They are a not for profit non-partisan organization sir, like I said if you care to dispute the testimony and the facts that were given then by all means do so.


From your own source the point you actually bolded:






Exactly your plan will slow GDP and Job growth, that's my whole point.


Most economies grow it's how fast they grow that's the key.


That's not the point . . . you need to know what type of fire that is burning before you can put it out or the solution can infact be worse than the problem you need to know the properties of the specific fire before you can put it out.



Trade agreements and economic incentives? To foriegn powers? And Domestically? Where is the money going to come from? Let me guess, increase taxes right which will inevitably slow GDP even more. So let me get this straight you want to give economic incentives to foriegn competitors in the global economy while simultaneously giving out stiff penalties to our own companies? That's really thinking it through.


No they won't. Not in our lifetime.



No it doesn't it harms my economic hegemony but only education will solve that problem. Another topic for another time but I will say this our country needs another Sputnik.


Like I said we can only control what goes on within our own borders and no amount of diplomacy is going to get China or India to quit using foriegn fuels or buying Iranian oil.



O.K. they don't know the answer any more than you do.


<<<continued below>>>

Trajan Octavian Titus

As a matter of fact your source agreed that Kyoto will slow GDP growth. In fact it said that:

To put that into perspective our current GPD real growth rate is at 3.5% Kyoto would cut GDP growth by more than half that's approximately just over a 50% decline in GDP real growth, to put that into even more perspective the real GDP growth rate declined by only 27% during the great depression, under Kyoto our economy would be twice as bad as it was during the Great Depression.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/us.html
http://www.somc.rochester.edu/Nov03/plosser1103.pdf



What's ironic is that the production of ethanol actually leads to ground water polution and deforestation in order to clear land for crop production.

Actually that was during the 1930s modern agricultural techniques improve soil quality. I take it you are referring to the great dust bowl and while failure to rotate crops had a major impact I believe a prolonged drought had a major impact as well which again is something we can not prevent, because mother nature is bigger than both of us?

That's why I propose expanfing the infrastructure for the cleanest and most efficient form of energy the human race has ever seen IE nuclear energy.

Trajan Octavian Titus

Sorry to cut it so close to the wire Independent I thought I had already responded last night but it appears they deleted my post feel free to respond now and not wait the additional 3 hours, because we only have 25 minutes until the thread will be locked perhaps we can get an extension from the moderator.

independent_thinker2002

Thank-you sir.

The general scientific community agrees that humans are effecting global warming. They can't give you an exact number, but they all agree it is happening. If we act now we can reverse what has been set in motion for the last 200 years. Since the Industrial Revolution we have been increasing Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere. Global warming is real. We have an opportunity to preserve the planet for our grandchildren and their's and so on. We should trust the experts and take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

My opponent won't concede the fact that we are having an effect on the global climate. He can't, or won't, comprehend that whether or not we are the root cause, we are affecting the environment. He wants to end the use of fossil fuels for national security's sake. He didn't support how this would improve national security. After citing Margo Thorning who was funded by ExxonMobil, he accused me of ad hominem attack when I raised issue with a source's credibility due to her conflict of interest. She didn't have to lie. She was offering her own speculation. You can't lie about your opinion. He said that the Kyoto Treaty would destroy our economy over and over. When I show the Department of Energy report saying that our economy would continue to grow and in the long term we would hardly notice the difference, he backed off. Somehow, he thinks that GDP growth can destroy our economy. Growth at a slower rate is still growth. It is not the doomsday economic disaster that my opponent would have you believe. It is the truly "pragmatic" way to go about this task.

Scientists aren't in league with some political agenda. Scientists seek the truth. Science in and of itself is not political. We should listen to the experts. The experts are not economists funded by oil companies. Scientists are some of the most pragmatic people there are. Scientists are hardly radical people bent on destruction of the economy. They care about the world we live in and are leaving our future ancestors. They are the ones truly looking out for us.

In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone who made these debates possible. I would like to thank Trajan for the spirited debate. I would also like to thank Jallman for the challenging debate. Tecoyah and Star also deserve thanks. For anyone else who deserves thanks, thank-you.

__________________
==]:{o

Trajan Octavian Titus

I request an extension to state my closing remarks tomorrow morning or afternoon.

FallingPianos

given that this is the final debate, and there are no further debates immediately schedualed, i'll grant an extension until 6:00pm EST.

Trajan Octavian Titus

My opponent refuses to counter the points made in the report I posted regarding the economic impacts of Kyoto instead he simply dismisses them out of hand by the very definition of the word that is an ad-hominem fallacy of logic. Regardless that is inconsequential due to the fact that according to my opponents own source Kyoto would slow GDP growth to 1.6%, and at the 2005 rate of 3.5% real GDP growth that is slightly over a 50% reduction in economic growth, to put that into perspective GDP growth only declined by 27% during the great depression, so infact under a plan; such as, Kyoto (according to my opponents own source mind you) our economy would be twice as bad as it was during the great depression. My opponents solution seems to be giving economic incentives to foriegn competitors and economic penalties to American bussinesses, this is irresponsible and negligent and is not the solution but rather it is the catalyst for economic disaster.

Furthermore; by my opponents own admission he can not prove a causation factor between human activities and global warming and then he goes on to make the ridiculous assertion that we do not need to know the cause of the problem to posit a solution. He can not tell us to what extent human beings are causing global warming nor can he tell us to what extent that our curbing fossil fuel usage will change the current trend of climate shift. As for my opponents claims that the scientists motives are purely benevolent and are not agenda driven or financially motivated I direct anyone interested to look into the following peer reviewed article entitled: 'Global Warming': An Official PseudoScience by Paulo N. Correa, M.Sc., PH.D. & Alexandra N. Correa, HBA.

From the article:
I further implore people to look into the sheer volume of advocacy groups associated with the global warming scare tactics:


The global warming craze is not purely scientifically motivated at all rather it is politically motivated and agenda driven. Scientists get grants and politicians get votes.

<<<Continued Below>>>

Trajan Octavian Titus

Regardless of whether or not you believe in the global warming doomsday scenarios posited by my opponent there is one thing that I hope we can all agree with and that is that fossil fuel depedency on foriegn powers who do not have our own national interests at heart is a danger to the economic stability and national security of the United States. That is why I propose a comprehensive program to expand our nuclear infrastructure while simultaneously granting economic incentives and government investment for the advancement of free and renewable energy sources; such as, solar, wind, thermal, and tidal current.. As for some of your apprehensions regarding the expansion of our nuclear power sources which I'm sure many of you have I hope that the following article by the co-founder of greenpeace by the name of Patrick Moore will help to alleviate some of your concerns:



In conclusion, I would just like to say that it is entirely possible for our country to balance out that which is good for the environment, as well as, that which is good for the economy it is not the case that we must solve one to the detriment of the other. We now have at our disposal the cleanest and most efficient energy source the world has ever known all we need now is the will to use it. Thank you all and may god continue to bless the United States of America.

FallingPianos

this debate is closed