• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are We Doomed?

flogger said:
I think I can put it far more simply for you than that . AGW is now simply far too big to ever be allowed to fail. Hence the switch of terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change' once the Earth stopped playing ball with the 'warming' part some years ago :(
Click to expand...

yep so now any climate change warm or cold will be blamed on man
 
lizzie said:
Anytime someone uses the words "most terrifying" to get your attention, odds are that there is an underlying agenda at stake, and I avoid them like the plague. Trying to inspire fear is one of the most underhanded, and most manipulative moves committed by mankind. If you are going to believe something, believe it on its actual merits, and not on the emotions it evokes in you.
Click to expand...
Apparently that Title is merely what a third party has given a video he found elsewhere on youtube. It may be on youtube with other less spectacular titles since it's analysis is quite Sober.

"If YOU are going to believe something, believe it on its actual merits, and not on the emotions it evokes in you."

How Ironic. No one has touched the "merits" of that video, including the Many Ignorant Clowns posting in this string. Most of the posts trying to help the poor lost OP spazman, have Not been able to give him single real counterargument.
 
trfjr said:
....I want you to look up what percentage does man contribute to CO2 emissions go ahead look it up it is not to hard to find

you will find scientist say it is between 4 to 5 % so how in the hell can you say that man made CO2 emissions is the contributing factor to global warming when they are only responsible for 5% of it
Click to expand...
Breathtaking!

Another Denier showing off his scientific knowledge!
-

co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

-

So you pulled you Goofy Lie from your hat.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Oh look, another Denier showing off his scientific knowledge!

co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif
Click to expand...

It doesnt matter what the CO 2 is doing but what the temperature is doing and that stopped rising a while ago now calling this whole CO 2 based hypothesis into question

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Even your high priest James Hansen has conceded that this has happened
 
Goshin said:
For starters, he's assuming we can "fix" the climate.

Ah, not so much. The "climate" is beyond us. It's like altering the Sun... we lack the means to cause substantive change.
Click to expand...
As I look out the window, I see a large River, the Hudson, We ruined and have indeed since "fixed", at least in some part.
You still wouldn't want to swim there or eat it's fish. That's at least another century or two away - if ever - since we still are polluting it too. And it in turn pollutes the Ocean: like thousands of other rivers,
Once we reach a certain point in atmospheric change it will take even more time to abate; too late to fix with consequences more planetary than a mere river.

It's ignorant in the extreme to believe our oceans or atmosphere are infinite relative to the amount/now billions of humans and the 100 million Years of Carbon and other pollutants they throw off in mere decades.
They ARE finite resources that we are changing and changing "substantively". (See CO2 graph above)
They are just 'bigger Hudsons' with more people dumping on them.
 
Last edited:
Lets say if humans are the cause of huge Environmental damage, can we humans fix it or just prevent it from happening sooner?
 
mbig said:
Breathtaking!

Another Denier showing off his scientific knowledge!
-

co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph.gif

-

So you pulled you Goofy Lie from your hat.
Click to expand...

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

For the past 10 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) has gotten a bad rap. Despite the fact that 95 percent of the CO2 emitted each year is produced by nature
Who's Afraid of CO2? | NCPA


Fact 1: At 385 parts per million (ppm), CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere – less than 4/100 of 1 percent of all gases present. Compared to earlier geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2-impoverished.

Fact 2: CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product.

Fact 3: Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life – plants and animals alike – benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

Fact 4: CO2 emissions do not stay in the atmosphere. They are continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans – the watery repository for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

Fact 5: Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95 percent of Earth's greenhouse effect, and man’s contribution to it is insignificant. Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions are responsible for only about 0.117 percent (see accompanying graph) of Earth's greenhouse effect. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over 4 inches.

Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs – are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.
Man-made CO2 has minimal effect on climate change, claim global-warming skeptics - Orlando Seminole County Environmental News | Examiner.com

humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions
Man

m10_t1.gif
ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT: MYTHS AND FACTS UPDATE
 
trfjr said:
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenouse_data.html]Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
[......]
Fact 6: When other anthropogenic greenhouse gases – methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and trace elements such as CFCs – are added to the above CO2 figure (.117 percent), the total human contribution to greenhouse gases is .28 percent.
[examiner.com/article/man-made-co2-has-minimal-effect-on-climate-change-claim-
global-warming-skeptic Man-made CO2 has minimal effect on climate change, claim global-warming skeptics - Orlando Seminole County Environmental News | Examiner.com[/url]
humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions
Blog.Heritage.org /2009/03/27/man%e2%80%99s-contribution-to-global-warming/]Man[/url]
View attachment 67155339
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
spazman56789 said:
I had a heated debate with my friend about the Environment. His side is that humans can survive Global warming if we work together, My side is that humans can't survive Global warming because we don't work together.
Click to expand...

This may strike you as counterintuitive, but I am optimistic, in the long term, about humanity meeting its challenges BECAUSE we don't all "work together".

I am hugely skeptical about the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing, as presented by our invariably objective mass media and politicians, but let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the very worst, wildest predictions turn out to be true. In such case, how would you deal with the situation? Basically, you have two options:

(1) 'We all work together' - meaning: We put all our eggs in one basket, and trust one particular political force with our lives (the totalitarian solution),

(2) We let people do what they do, watch, and learn - what works, and what doesn't. We diversify the risk.

Your choice?
 
Cyrylek said:
This may strike you as counterintuitive, but I am optimistic, in the long term, about humanity meeting its challenges BECAUSE we don't all "work together".

I am hugely skeptical about the whole Global Warming Apocalypse thing, as presented by our invariably objective mass media and politicians, but let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that the very worst, wildest predictions turn out to be true. In such case, how would you deal with the situation? Basically, you have two options:

(1) 'We all work together' - meaning: We put all our eggs in one basket, and trust one particular political force with our lives (the totalitarian solution),

(2) We let people do what they do, watch, and learn - what works, and what doesn't. We diversify the risk.

Your choice?
Click to expand...

Thank you, I like your response of my debate. I certainly wont want my freedom taken away.
 
spazman56789 said:
I had a heated debate with my friend about the Environment. His side is that humans can survive Global warming if we work together, My side is that humans can't survive Global warming because we don't work together.
We discuss about human nature, if we are good or they are bad, and if they can change or not. We ended up asking for sources to prove who has more of burden to prove, he gave a list of his college history papers on empathy he read and I gave him a list of Social Science and Philosophy book of human evil and morality. He claim he knows more then me because he is a history major and he claim i lack understanding of history because i emphasis on the evil humans had done. I claim that I know more about human nature trough my studies and experience watching. His final conclusion is that he knows human society will grow to prevent Global warming because he has read the humans in the past change for the better good like taking away slavery and sacrifices. I believe that humans might doom our planet scenario is more likely, because we have trouble uniting together and the differences will keep causing problem for the environment, not just global warming.

though out the debate my friend swears and call me names so i put the debate here to see what you guys think of the topic and our debate? just ask if you want more details about the debate.
Click to expand...

Our track record for overcoming environmental and alleged resource obstacles is nearly 100%. So I'm quite confident about our ability to not only survive but thrive over the coming century.
 
Hi this is an example of of what i am going to say to my friend once we continue the debate.

[citing sources is not necessary in a debate, Its might look nicer on your part but there is never a universal rule that debates need sources. peer review is the same thing, its not require in debates. We can discussing each other sources in great detail for months, and since there is little to no reward for the effort, I will discard this rule from the debate. If you wanted to do peer reviewing you should have put that rule up before the start of the debate. This has been quite a distraction for me since I needed to search for the books in my unorganized bookshelves which some i have missed, We are not writing a research paper on this topic we are just having a friendly debate.

on to the main argument. I will use a bit of math, Lets say 95% of the human population is environmentalist while the 5% are non-environmental, from the studies shown by IpCC and other environmentalist that 5% of the world's population is enough to cause environmental apocalypse, now have we ever litter, use gas by driving or taking bus, waste energy, wastes water, and other little mistakes we did that harm the environment? Lets say everyone did these mistake once, this adds up to the environmental doom sooner, Lets add population growth, since i am talking about environmental issue, one of the problems is overpopulating since 95% is environmental they will most likely not have kids, so it will drop, now looking at the non environmentalist they don't really care for overpopulation so they might have more kids and that 5% becomes 10% which increase the apocalypse happening sooner. of course this scenario is unrealistic because the amount is close to almost half of the non environmentalist.
lets look at the time limit, its evident that the time limit is getting closer by the amount of people, so lets say we give the world to the hands of the future generation and they didn't found a solution and they gave it there their next generation and found nothing, how many generation will it take to find the solution, will they find it before the time limit which is soon?
and their Its also a possibility that there is no solution to this problem they could just waste their time and resources into something nonexistent.
This environmental issue is a Wicked problem and has been for years. but of course there has been some solutions like the one you came up with,
from the example you gave me about human history and growth its seems one major force in your example is by giving the government more power. You will have to make the 100% of the world population to environmentalist with they will commit no mistakes to tackle this environmental problem and may stop the apocalypse.

“If there is no solution to the problem then don't waste time worrying about it. If there is a solution to the problem then don't waste time worrying about it.” quote from Dalai Lama
I am not asking for a solution, i am waiting for one. so in the mean time i wont worry about it.

My entire argument is based on IPCC and other environmentalist studies on their very worst, and wildest predictions. I see their studies to be overly exaggerated. I don't believed that humans cause the climate to change dramatically. I believe that humans will adapt to this event like we did before and will continue to live on.]

Let me know what you guys think.
 
I think you really don't know what you're talking about.

Like, I don't even know where to begin. I could write an essay on how oversimplified and absolutist a picture you have of the situation.
 
trfjr said:
first of all you have to prove man is one of the major contributing factor to global warming which you can not if you follow any logic or common sense
Man made global warming hoaxsters claim it is the burning of fossil fuel that contributes to CO2 that is the cause of global warming which it is not but lets say for argument sake that CO2 emissions is the factor for global warming. I want you to look up what percentage does man contribute to CO2 emissions go ahead look it up it is not to hard to find you will find scientist say it is between 4 to 5 % so how in the hell can you say that man made CO2 emissions is the contributing factor to global warming when they are only responsible for 5% of it
Click to expand...

You're doing this fundamental error again. I bet you still refuse to hear what that error is!

It's very unfortunate that you've been sold this little sliver of the truth so successfully. The best lies are lies by omission. See, this 5% figure isn't wrong. But it is missing a huge part of the picture that makes your use of this figure incorrect in this context. The people who sold this number to you are well aware of the omission, but they were also aware that you wouldn't think about it critically.
 
Deuce said:
I think you really don't know what you're talking about.

Like, I don't even know where to begin. I could write an essay on how oversimplified and absolutist a picture you have of the situation.
Click to expand...

If your referring to my post above could you explain the error of my argument, and if its too much then can you just explain the major ones.
 
spazman56789 said:
I had a heated debate with my friend about the Environment. His side is that humans can survive Global warming if we work together, My side is that humans can't survive Global warming because we don't work together.
We discuss about human nature, if we are good or they are bad, and if they can change or not. We ended up asking for sources to prove who has more of burden to prove, he gave a list of his college history papers on empathy he read and I gave him a list of Social Science and Philosophy book of human evil and morality. He claim he knows more then me because he is a history major and he claim i lack understanding of history because i emphasis on the evil humans had done. I claim that I know more about human nature trough my studies and experience watching. His final conclusion is that he knows human society will grow to prevent Global warming because he has read the humans in the past change for the better good like taking away slavery and sacrifices. I believe that humans might doom our planet scenario is more likely, because we have trouble uniting together and the differences will keep causing problem for the environment, not just global warming.

though out the debate my friend swears and call me names so i put the debate here to see what you guys think of the topic and our debate? just ask if you want more details about the debate.
Click to expand...

We are doomed in a sense. Our lifestyle, our existence as we know it,has been doomed from the start. But that is the nature of all things. It won't be because of global warming, it will be because change is inevitable. Be it climate, evolution, or a comet heading straight for us, change will come and we will adapt and change with it or perish.

I think by the time the real "end" for this planet comes, we will be as far along as we can get and either have moved on to another world, or exist on another plane or in another form. Look how far we have come in such a relatively short time. Imagine if we can make it for just one tenth of the age of this planet? How far could we get...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom