frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Who should bear the burden of combating climate change?

13



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar "There is a basic balance consideration: in the equilibrium, the rate of "consumption" of CO2 by the forest, and the rate of its release through forest fires, death of trees and so on, are equal - and this equilibrium can take a long time to be achieved, due to how fundamentally unstable the local parts of the system are."

    It only takes 10 years for trees to reach maximum CO2 capture. One way to reduce CO2 is to grow a bunch of trees, cut them down and preserve them, then grow more. CO2 is then stored as biomass.

    "Regarding nuclear weapons, this is just incorrect. The actual problem, the one which all countries trying to develop them get stuck on the longest, is not how to enrich Uranium, and not even how to put it together in a bomb;"

    I couldn't agree more, this is exactly what I said.

    "it is how to make sure that that bomb does not go off on its own, and yet can do so upon activating the trigger system. The trigger system has to work in a very precise way, with an initial controlled explosion initiated with great time precision - and that is why only selected few countries have managed to weaponize nuclear energy."

    No, like I said you just have to put enough fissile material in one place, and it will go critical, because of natural neutron production due to spontaneous fission starting the chain reaction. For some fissile materials, such as plutonium you have to make it more dense, which is done by compressing it with conventional explosives. With Uranium-235 this is not necessary.

    "The physics is all well known by now. It is the details of implementation that take decades to work out, even with all schematics present. The fantasy of random guy on a kitchen assembling a hydrogen bomb and detonating it happens only in Hollywood movies."

    Actually, there was a death cult that very nearly completed a nuke, among other things such as sarin gas and anthrax.

    https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/revisiting-aum-shinrikyo-new-insights-most-extensive-non-state-biological-weapons-program-date-1/

    I agree that the point of the government is to protect individual liberties, but what you still don't seem to understand is that climate change is a threat to individual liberty, and to markets and global freedom in general. It is much the same way that littering on the highway oversteps individual freedoms, because it is a misuse of public space, so if the atmosphere and the climate are to be considered no ones property, then they are a public resource and ought to be controlled jointly. If someone does something to spoil it, they should pay for the damage they caused. I don't understand why people think this is controversial, you can do what you want on your own property but not on public land and not with public resources. If what you are doing effects me in a negative way, the government should stop it, because by your own admission that is their job.

    How free can we say a market is if you don't have the right to buy and sell slaves? Slavery is as free-market as it gets.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @Happy_Killbot

    You are talking about the timeline of a system under the assumption of no feedback. That is, if we keep the CO2 level in the atmosphere constant, then after X number of years the trees will reach the maximum CO2 saturation level. However, the CO2 level, in turn, is affected by its capture by the trees, which leads to exponential decay of the degree of imbalance, and that exponential decay can last for quite a long time.

    Sure, but you cannot make a nuclear bomb this way: your bomb will blow up at the production stage. Considering how expensive enrichment of Uranium is, I do not see anyone wasting money in such a spectacular way.

    Shinrikyo made a lot of big promises, but they actually could not produce anything that would kill more than a dozen people, despite years of planning and possessing extensive resources. Their only prominent terrorist attack killed fewer people, than some single knife attackers have. Knives are not regulated in Japan, while nukes are...
    "Nearly completed a nuke" is a very weak statement. This "nearly" in engineering often constitutes 99% of the actual work yet to be done.

    Me sneezing also affects you in a negative way. Something affecting you in a negative way in itself is not a reason for penalising the perpetrator. It is not about what affects you in a negative way; it is about what violates your rights. There is no right to have unpolluted air in the wilderness, for example; you could make a case for having unpolluted air on your property, but unless you can specifically pinpoint someone who is responsible for a significant fraction of that pollution (such as a factory next door, for example), you have no case to make here.
    If you believe that someone violates your individual freedoms, you can take it to a court; that is how the legal system works. But you cannot go to the court and say, "Society as a whole violates my individual freedoms by polluting air, so all of its members should be sanctioned". Any reasonable court will dismiss your case instantly. Again, the government is the only entity allowed to make such cases - and it should not be, assuming the Founding Fathers' design.
    I know some left-leaning libertarians subscribe to the idea that unclaimed resource = collectively owned resource. I have always found this very bizarre and cannot wrap my head around the reasoning behind such a view - but to each their own.

    You have the right to buy and sell slaves, of course. Similarly, slaves have the right to not participate in these transactions and not be bought - which undermines the term "slave". Slavery as in forcing people to work against their will is not the free market; it is closer to a socialist market, a fundamentally coercive institution, and historically came not from capitalism, but from mercantilism, which is a very different system. Mercantilism is not concerned with voluntary exchanges; it is concerned with pillage and plunder in the name of the crown.
  • If I may. Atomic power has set the stage for the earth's first critical meltdown. The meltdown has not been dealt with as of yet and is simply contained making it a threat to global stability until stopped. Quite simply end the meltdown then talk about the safety of atomic power would be the prudent course of action here …

    Slavery is a process created by international War debt...so were are we statistically? 0 - 2 is not 2 - 0, when pick examples to make a point. The talk about dealing with legislation as the America's might learned as a United State is that a POW is a Military undertaking event when the people in which make up general welfare is drawn into can be relieved of their command.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar The rate of CO2 sequestration by a tree is not linear or exponential, it is in fact logarithmic, because at some point the tree stops growing, at which point CO2 sequestration levels off to CO2 production rates by photosynthesis

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Growth-rate-and-life-span-influence-CO2-sequestration-In-this-example-the-total-amount_fig6_31926081

    The little boy, the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun and socket type weapon. The U-235 was separated into two pieces, which when brought together with conventional explosives constituted critical mass.

    Sneezing, in the context of spreading of pathogens, does effect me negatively, but it isn't the same as releasing CO2 because the pathogen is making it happen rather than you doing it willingly, so the sick individual is not to blame, unless they created the pathogen in a lab with intention and released it.

    We can point to the major CO2 producers, Just 100 companies are responsible for about 71% of greenhouse gas emissions, including the products released from the combustion of fossil fuels by individuals.

    https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions

    There are ongoing lawsuits against CO2 producers and the government to put regulations of greenhouse gas emissions in place.

    https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions

    I think this slaves / free market discussion is sufficiently far from the topic to constitute a new thread.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • In a biological sense radiation and microwaves indiscriminately kill bacterium.
    Found this amusing.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/deinococcus-radiodurans

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    I am talking not about a single tree, but about the whole environment, where the number of trees does not stay constant, but is described by a somewhat complicated differential equation.

    That gun and socket weapon took decades to develop, with the most brilliant scientists in the world working hard on it. It was not a work of a bunch of amateurs or bureaucrats; not something everyone can replicate. 75 years since then, only around a dozen countries even have the means to produce nuclear weapons, and virtually all of those countries find it too economically inefficient to do actively.

    You can suppress sneezing in most cases if you try really hard, so you are doing it willingly to an extent.

    Even if there was just one company producing 100% greenhouse gas emissions, it would not change the argument - unless the emissions were so bad, they led to significant worsening of air quality on people's property. And that worsening takes a very long time to become significant in any way that could be punishable by a reasonable law.
    It is a different case if, say, there is a factory near your house actively burning waste, creating a health hazard for you. There you have a very strong case to make for some form of reparations - paid directly to you, rather than some intermediate governmental organisation. Individual lawsuits are settled directly between the entities involved.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar The possibility for using uranium as a weapon was discovered in 1939, developed by the Manhattan project and the first bomb was used in 1945. That's hardly decades of development, in fact it is a shockingly fast turn around all considering. I still don't think a private company could have done all that in such a short period of time, even if they had the resources of the US government.

    You can suppress sneezing to a certain extent, or just cover you mouth like a decent person, but that doesn't mean you decided to sneeze, so it still isn't voluntary the way driving to work alone instead of car pooling is.

    The emissions are so bad that they effect everyone on a global scale, as I have stated again, and again.
    Specifically:
    • Increase is size and frequency of storms
    • loss of biodiversity, and marine resources in particular
    • destruction of coastal property due to erosion and increasing sea levels.
    • destruction of property due to more frequent wildfires
    • mass displacement of persons in certain geographic areas, due to loss of water resource
    • mass starvation and famine brought about by higher temperatures killing plants
    • huge loss in profits from companies that rely on coastal resources and agriculture
    • Higher average costs for basic amenities, including food, water, and housing
    • rise in authoritarian regimes globally
    This isn't something we will see in 100 years, we see the effects of this right now.

    Consider the illegal immigrant from Mexico to the US. It is not readily apparent how this is the result of climate change, but in fact it is and in more than one way. In the countries most effected, famine and drought push desperate people into a state of panic, rising crime rates and disorder. Wages stagnate if work can even be found. This leads to rise of authoritarian regimes to attempt to control order. Many people will chose to leave for other countries such as the US, where even getting paid a fraction of minimum wage is more than enough to send home. In the US, agriculture costs increase, which are themselves due to changes in climate, mostly from increased water consumption resulting from higher temperatures. This pushes farmers to hire underpaid illegal workers to offset the costs. Many will also work on fishing boats, who now have to go further out and for longer to harvest the sea food that used to be plentiful. There is a powerful draw then for new people to enter the US. This results in increased housing prices, since each of these immigrants will need new homes and of course they themselves need food and water to survive. Meanwhile, destruction of coastal cities has lead to increased infrastructure costs to build dikes and waterways to not drown the city, increasing taxes and decreasing property values. Forest fires eat up much of that critical housing resource, and do nothing to solve the problem of CO2 release, but in fact make it much worse by releasing more CO2.

    Climate change is a huge deal. The fact that so many people won't do anything about it because they are so preoccupied with themselves that they can't be bothered to do anything is an atrocity.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    If you only consider the exact period of the Manhattan project and that is it, then yes, it was a very short period. If you consider the entire time it took for the idea of splitting atom to be weaponized starting with basic research in the field, then yes, it took decades - just as it always takes all other nations.

    If you do not like the sneeze example, then consider me walking on the street and talking on my phone, creating a noise for you walking by. How much do I owe you for it?

    It does not matter who emissions affect; what matters in the property context is how much the emissions produced by one person affect another person and their property. Obviously 8 billion people combined are going to produce some global effects; you are free to file 8 billion lawsuits if you like, but you cannot group all people into one large entity and sue that entity - or, at least, you should not be able to in a proper legal system.

    What is a huge deal for you may not be even a blip on a radar for others. Realise that you are not the center of the Universe, and your vision of the future is not shared by everyone.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I don't think talking on your phone loudly, besides being very annoying negatively impacts the whole of the planet, even if everyone is doing it. Now suppose we cranked it up 1,000 degrees and we started actively pumping noise into every corner of the globe, then it's a problem because it would disturb wildlife and cause a ton of people to lose sleep. Climate change is more like actively blasting bass into everything than it is to someone talking on a phone. However, if we did decide to introduce some sort of noise pricing, I would expect the value of that phone conversation to be rather low, maybe only a few cents, and most likely everyone would switch to SMS.

    You can't sue the people, but you can sue the government for failing to provide proper legal protections that lead to damage of your property from the collective actions of individuals. After all, it was their lack of action that lead to the destruction of your property, so technically that would leave them guilty of your burdens.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Mass murder does not negatively impact the whole planet either, even if everyone is doing it. You focus too much on the planet, and too little on the people living on that planet.
    At what point should negative externality warrant restitution? Courts typically use "reasonable judgement" based on whether the damage dealt to a person by another person is deemed significant or not. How significant is the damage I am dealing to you by driving my car to work? Am I disrupting your life in any way?

    There is a large difference between failing to provide legal protections required by the contract, and failing to ensure a favorable outcome for the party involved. For example, when you hire a lawyer, your lawyer only vows to represent you to the best of their ability; they do not vow to win the case.

    Your narrative ultimately comes down to there existing some form of "objective good" that the society as a whole should strive for. Have you considered that different people may have different preferences? What if, for example, I want climate change to occur, because I am bored with the current climate and want to see what a planet with a different climate would look like? You will have a hard time justifying the claim that my desire is somehow wrong.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar Like it or hate it, we rely on this planet for survival as biological organisms. On top of that, fighting climate change doesn't put the planet ahead of man's interests, it puts them on level ground.

    If there was an apartment building, in which some of the rooms were lit on fire to warm the rest of the building, you wouldn't say that we were putting the building's needs ahead of the tenants, you would tell people to stop being dumb and find a way to heat the building without burning it. That is essentially what is happening with fossil fuels and renewable, we are trying to find a way to make people stop burning the planet.

    I'm not advocating for any kind of objective good here, but there is something which science has repeatedly concluded would be ultimately bad for our society if we do not stop it. We can say objectively, that if we don't do anything about the climate that certain things will occur. If someone wants these things to happen, they are most likely a danger to society.

    If someone wants to murder everyone because humans are evil and destroying the planet, we can't tell them they can't have those views, but the second they try releasing a deadly super virus, they all ought to be killed because that violates the rights of others to not want to live.

    In the case of climate change, because these actions can objectively lead to destruction, wanting it to happen prevents those who don't want it from being able to have their way as well, so only maintaining the status quo, by enforcing regulations on the production of greenhouse gasses and providing benefits such as subsidies to companies that develop green technologies can we maintain the status quo.

    Climate change violates the rights and property of others, so there is a moral obligation from liberal principals to do something about it.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5966 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Perhaps survival is not paramount for some of us. Humans sometimes sacrifice their lives for something, and do so quite willingly, I might add. "Survival at all costs" is a questionable paradigm to follow. If we have to choose between introducing certain policies most of us do not want, and a vague perspective of making the Earth inhabitable at some point in the future, then the former is not necessarily the right choice.

    "Bad" and "good" are subjective categories by definition, and science cannot make any conclusions involving them. What is bad for some members of society could be good for other ones. 
    My mother hates hot climate, and I hate cold climate. Wherever the average temperature moves, it will make one of us happier and another one of us unhappier (I realise that it is not the whole picture, but you get my point).

    I do not disagree with regards to the murder; I was just pointing out that how something affects the planet is not nearly as important from the anthropocentric perspective as how something affects the individuals.

    Not at all; climate change can lead to both destruction and creation. And destruction, in turn, is not necessarily for the worse; sometimes destruction is necessary for growth to begin.

    Climate change cannot violate anyone's rights, because it is not a legal entity. You cannot sue climate change or imprison it, for example.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar How can you still deny that climate change effects individuals?

    That has been the theme of all of my posts so far tracing back to my first which is only one word. Climate change effects everyone, so everyone must contend with it. Those who do the most to promote climate change represent an existential threat to some, and a threat to private business owners and land owners everywhere.

    You still have this simple idea in your head that everything is just going to get a little warmer, but it's not that simple, and the fact that you would even allude to it, and say it directly very early on just goes to show that maybe you are not making a completely informed decision here.

    Climate change effects individuals.

    Anyone who promotes climate change is a threat to those effected.

    It is not right that we should do nothing about it.

    I have very clearly demonstrated how changes in climate brought about by human activities, and CO2 production in particular, can and does lead to property destruction and violation of human rights, and because it is caused by humans humans must be held responsible. In particular, climate change results in:
    • Increase is size and frequency of storms
    • loss of biodiversity, and marine resources in particular
    • destruction of coastal property due to erosion and increasing sea levels.
    • destruction of property due to more frequent wildfires
    • mass displacement of persons in certain geographic areas, due to loss of water resource
    • mass starvation and famine brought about by higher temperatures killing plants
    • huge loss in profits from companies that rely on coastal resources and agriculture
    • Higher average costs for basic amenities, including food, water, and housing
    • rise in authoritarian regimes globally
    You haven't contended with these issues or even really addressed them besides to just deny it.

    I mean, right now your argument boils down to: "some people might want their homes destroyed by flooding, coastal erosion, and super storms. Shouldn't they have the right to have that happen?" That's F***ing . Even if someone does want that, for whatever reason, doesn't mean it should be allowed if this also means that someone who doesn't want their home destroyed by flooding, coastal erosion, and super storms. This is just a terrible argument.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.

  • The climate change issue is one of those things that shows just how lacking scientific literacy is in the people that continue to refuse to accept it.
    Happy_Killbot



  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 At this point the philosophical illiteracy is bugging me more, and I'm the type who likes to say that philosophy is dead.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.

  • The climate change issue is one of those things that shows just how lacking scientific literacy is in the people that continue to refuse to accept it.

    Climate change is so well excepted when it is describe in certain ways the principles become misunderstood. While much information is not set as a common defense to the general welfare. As of yet I cannot confirm this as true but it appears as though a well-known bacteria resistant to radiation also effect Co2


  • Climate manipulation deals directly with all ways we know climate can be made to change. Then the means can be tested against what is taking place around us. 
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Nope Climate change is valid...the weather changes and fluctuates but man and carbon emissions do NOT change the weather...it's a natural, cyclical, phenomenon controlled by our Creator. Until our Creator has completed His purposes for Time and this Earth, the seasons will continue and the Earth will remain until God's Plan has been completed. Man-induced climate change is a globalist-socialist hoax for the globalist elite to gain control over the production-distribution of all goods and services...nothing more, nothing less.

     
    smoothieHappy_Killbot
  • So you basically a claim is made that all natural change is your Lords and no human influence is not your Lords. 
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Humanity does not control the weather...God does.


  • @RickeyD ;
    Ugh! Basically a claim is made that all natural change is your Lords work, and all human change is not your lords doing. Your lord has told you he is going to destroy the earth, this can mean it may be done through people....I see nothing stating to stay here waiting to die.
  • @RickeyD ;

    Climate is not weather the weather is simply a part of a climate. Air conditioning and heaters are a part of human climate change. You mean your Lord God controls the weather. God, A Lord, and your Lord God are two completely provable different things.
  • Humans and a lord god do not have to control the weather the same way.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD Guess you have never heard of nuclear winter then  ;)

    Humans can control the weather if we want, including through CO2 emissions.

    On top of this, you think the world is only 6,000 years old, hardly enough time for the climate cycles to take place, which occur over tens of thousands of years.

    The bible is supposed to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally in cased you were too busy being a hater to get the memo.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Not the point Happy_Killbot.

    Humans manipulate climate we do not change the weather. In a nuclear winter the snow is still snow, cold is still cold, the rain may be radioactive.
    You know little if anything about time. It is a distance measured with a velocity that is reflected establish a start and a finish point of distances that are described as Degree, Hour, minute, and second. The argument of time is using two principles that do not co-exist and a year is an approximation on the scale of time. The atomic second is also an approximation on scale. There is a way to calibrate a time from a sun, any sun, it simply is not done by any human.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    Kind of getting away form who is to pay for erratic climate variables....
    You are John. We've already determined it is you.
  • John_C_87 said:
    Not the point Happy_Killbot.

    Humans manipulate climate we do not change the weather. In a nuclear winter the snow is still snow, cold is still cold, the rain may be radioactive.
    You know little if anything about time. It is a distance measured with a velocity that is reflected establish a start and a finish point of distances that are described as Degree, Hour, minute, and second. The argument of time is using two principles that do not co-exist and a year is an approximation on the scale of time. The atomic second is also an approximation on scale. There is a way to calibrate a time from a sun, any sun, it simply is not done by any human.
    @John_C_87 forgive for asking but is English your native language?



  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 You too are the "fool."


  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; I know the Earth is but 6k-yrs old and the Holy Spirit, who was at creation, has told you so.

    How the Bible teaches 6-thousand-years: http://https//creation.com/6000-years

    Happy_Killbot
  • John_C_87 said:
    Not the point Happy_Killbot.

    Humans manipulate climate we do not change the weather. In a nuclear winter the snow is still snow, cold is still cold, the rain may be radioactive.
    You know little if anything about time. It is a distance measured with a velocity that is reflected establish a start and a finish point of distances that are described as Degree, Hour, minute, and second. The argument of time is using two principles that do not co-exist and a year is an approximation on the scale of time. The atomic second is also an approximation on scale. There is a way to calibrate a time from a sun, any sun, it simply is not done by any human.
    @John_C_87 forgive for asking but is English your native language?

    Depends do know no-one born in the United States of America speaks English as a native language right?

    American ate taught English.


  • Often for time I type as fast as I can and do not proof read the typing...
  • piloteer said:
    John_C_87 said:
    Kind of getting away form who is to pay for erratic climate variables....
    You are John. We've already determined it is you.
    No, they have already spent money as credit manipulating  a visible change, I hedge an idea of a Gulf - Pacific canal and shifting of note of reciepts for debt to bring an overdue ballance on the offer of that credit.

  • @RickeyD ;

    Obviously fool is a possibility, I stand righteous and I do not see where the climate can not be manipulated by people and god still retains in control of the weather.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD The earth is only 6000 years old if you are gullible enough to think the earth is flat.

    The earth is not 6,000 years old, it is 4.2 billion years old.

    Now tell me what your book of lies has to say about nuclear winter... unless it says nothing because not even god can predict that, because it was all made up   B)
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; I don't believe the Earth is flat nor does my Lord suggest same.

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD
    Statement made by gullible Christian climate change deniers: "Humans can not change the climate. Climate can only be changed by god"

    Statement is false. Evidence?

    NUCLEAR WINTER

    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; Man does not control the weather...



    400 Scientific Papers Undermine Global Warming, and That’s Just for This Year

    https://conservativetribune.com/scientific-papers-global-warming/?utm_source=push&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2017-10-26&utm_campaign=manualpost

    Climate Change is Cyclical and Predictable (Not man made)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/#6fef25dc73ad

    The Fiddling with Temperature Data is the Biggest Science Scandal Ever

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

    EXCLUSIVE: Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data

    https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/

    Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/#3e8e386e53a5

    Green New Deal Would Barely Change Earth’s Temperature. Here Are the Facts.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/02/07/green-new-deal-would-barely-change-earths-temperature-here-are-the-facts/

    Oh, So That's Why The 'Glaciers Will Be Gone In 2020' Sign Has Been Removed At A National Park

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/06/11/oh-so-thats-why-the-glaciers-will-be-gone-in-2020-sign-has-been-removed-at-a-n2547957?1117











    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD Stop trying to avoid the question.

    NUCLEAR WINTER


    Is it man made weather control, yes or no?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot Catastrophic behavior can affect the weather but nature will normalize even with man's irresponsibility. With that said, man's day-to-day behavior does NOT affect the weather.  The Scriptures notate the effects of nuclear war...

    12And when I saw the Lamb open the sixth seal, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs dropping from a tree shaken by a great wind.…

    Revelation 6:12-13

    the sun, . . . the moon, . . . the stars
    Isaiah prophesied the darkening of all three of these sources of light during the Day of the LORD:

    Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine. (Isa. Isa. 13:9-10) [emphasis added]

    In Joel’s vision of the Day of the Lord, the darkening of these same heavenly bodies attends the advance of His army (Joel Joel 2:10-11), which are probably the demonic forces unleashed in the next chapter. The darkening of the sun, moon, and stars will be relatively frequent during the various judgments of this terrible period (Joel Joel 3:15).

    darkened
    The sun became “black as sackcloth” as a result of the sixth seal judgment (Rev. Rev. 6:12+). During the plagues of Egypt God brought complete darkness during the day (Ex. Ex. 10:21-23), but only a partial darkening is described here. The darkening of the sun, moon, and stars at this juncture is most likely due to cloud cover—either by smoke or other physical disturbances (Isa. Isa. 5:30; Eze. Eze. 32:6; Zep. Zep. 1:14-15; Rev. Rev. 9:2+). As in Genesis, the language may reflect the perspective of the earth dweller so that cloud or dust could obscure these cosmic bodies. Others assume the sun, moon, and stars themselves are directly affected: “Somehow, the visible luminaries in the heavens for a time, maybe a day, maybe several days, slow down their internal reactions in such a way as to reduce their power by a factor of one-third. The day and night, as a result are only two-thirds as bright as normal, even though the skies are completely clear of haze or anything else to obscure the light.”1 Although the text does not say that the skies are completely clear , it is certainly within God’s power to tinker with the internal mechanism of solar power since at a later date the sun’s burning will be intensified (Rev. Rev. 16:8-9+). See also Jeremiah Jer. 4:23-28; Matthew Mat. 24:29; Mark Mark 13:24; Luke Luke 21:25; Acts Acts 2:20. See commentary on Revelation 6:12. See The Plagues of Egypt and the Tribulation.




  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD If you accept that man's day to day activities can effect the weather, then why is it so hard to accept that climate change can be brought about by human activities as well?

    These are the same things.

    If humans can eradicate all life through nuclear Armageddon, then why is it a stretch to think that we can not raise global temperatures through release of greenhouse gasses?

    Climate change is an ecological disaster, that is the destruction of plants and animals, marine life in particular, that is caused because CO2 released from fossil fuels acts like a blanket, trapping in heat.

    Does the bible not say in Genesis that humans are to be stewards of the earth? That we are to care for it and ensure that it is taken care of? That the land must not be abused?

    If anything, Christians should be the first to do something about climate change, but as always the atheist scientists have to save your @$$
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • No Nuclear winter is not a man-made weather control it is Environmental disaster similar in many ways to a natural disaster like an explosion from a meteor or volcano blocking out the sun with dust.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  

    1) I said that man's day-to-day activities do NOT affect the weather.
    2) Man will not vaporize man into extinction...God will not allow for this as it is not in accordance with His Plan for Time and Eternity though nuclear war will be the initiator of the coming Apocalypse to be manifest by Islam/Russia/China/Arab-Iran coalition V. Israel, Jerusalem.
    3) Man-induced climate change is a globalist-elitist-socialist hoax. It was in the 1980's that I believe we were going to freeze to death, now, it's heat.
    4) The Bible does say that man has dominion over the Earth but that we are not to worship the Earth as it is passing away (Romans 1:25; 1 John 2:15).
    5) There is NOTHING that can be done about the climate...it is cyclical...it's called "weather." I agree that cleaning-up our environment for health reasons, both for human kind and animal, is a wise and needed pursuit but outlawing plastics and coal, combustible fuels, will have NO impact on the weather.


  • @RickeyD ;
    The order of the world is changing because of the new world of outer space.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Nothing is changing relevant to Truth or Time or Eternity...all is proceeding in accordance with our Creator's Plan and purposes.


  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -   edited January 2020
    @RickeyD You need to get your story straight and stop treating junk cherry picked science as fact.

    If you have ever heard of chaos theory, then you will know that your first point is moot.

    Man could destroy itself at any time... are you really willing to put the whole of humanity on the line because you think we are somehow safe from ourselves? Have we not free will? Yet another pathetic instance of not being able to have your cake and eat it to. If we have free will we can kill ourselves and change the climate. If god intervenes, then we do not have free will.

    In the 1980's there was only a fringe minority of scientific papers that said the earth was cooling. They just got all the press, and you like the gullible boot licker you are believed it.

    The planet isn't going anywhere. Humans on the other hand, are a few missteps and misunderstandings from extinction. Make no mistake, human's are not sacred in any way, and the planet will be just fine after we are all dead.

    The introduction of a carbon tax will help improve the climate by allowing natural forces to restore balance. You can not sit there in ignorance and expect everything to be fine because a man on a cloud who you have no evidence of loves you. People like you make me sick. It is as if you lit a fire, and now you are trying to blame it on external forces. You took an active role in killing the planet and making life a living hell for future generations, and you will just have to accept that.

    Oh, and the meme you post is fake news.

    https://skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; Sounds as though you have it all figured out...enjoy. You're far too intelligent to argue with.


    Happy_Killbotsmoothie
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD And you are far too to be taken seriously.

    Why don't you just enjoy your retirement and leave all the important things to people who aren't snowflakes?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot ; Thank you for the input. I have simply told you truth.


  • @RickeyD ;
    The order of time will change due to the scale of the new world outer-space.

    Are you saying God is a bookie?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @RickeyD You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the face.

    The bible isn't based on truth, it's based on speculation and feelings.

    And facts don't care about your feelings.
    smoothie
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch