Climate change - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
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 by activity 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.









Climate change

Debate Information

Despite having unanimous agreement from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real, some people still believe right-wing politicians, who know nothing on the topic, than experts in the field. 
  1. Live Poll

    Is climate change real

    13 votes
    1. Yes
      76.92%
    2. No, because i think trump is smarter than all the scientists combined
      23.08%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • @TreeMan

    Climate change is real perjury, as the public allegation made by science is based on a basic principle of manipulation and not just a process of spoken change. There is a cause, the cause is an allegation publicly creating a perpetrator of harm. The issue with climate change is if it is legal negligence or if it is not legal negligence, by possible separation from the truth, there has never been any scientific evidence to support that any planetary environment is stable long term. By the number of planets even considered being habitual by science the idea of scientific negligence is a reasonable question to demand answers in an official inquiry.



    TreeManAlofRIDarthBallsBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    climate change is a natural process of the earth  it has always been part of the earht and will continue to be due to many factors, natural or human made. .@TreeMan
    Blastcat
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    So are you agreeing on the fact that the current climate crisis is man-made, or otherwise? @maxx
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    There is no climate crisis
    AlofRITreeManLuigi7255OakTownABlastcat
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    Says who? Conspiracy theorists and politicians, that know nothing about earth science?
    @Sonofason
    OakTownA
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    Yes the usual nuts will gather to inform everyone including scientists that they’re right and everyone else is wrong this is the same crowd that are nearly always anti vax pro gun nuts whos every opinion comes from FOX news 


    WWF.org 

    MYTH 1. THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HAS ALWAYS CHANGED  

    Over the course of the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, the climate has changed a lot. This is true. But the rapid warming we’re seeing now can't be explained by natural cycles of warming and cooling. The kind of changes that would normally happen over hundreds of thousands of years are happening in decades. 

    Global temperatures are now at their highest since records began. In fact, 17 of the 18 warmest years on record have all taken place since 2001.  

    This much faster warming corresponds with levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which have been increasing since the industrial revolution. So, when people talk about climate change today, they mean anthropogenic (man-made) climate change. This is the warming of Earth’s average temperature as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy to fuel our homes and transport and cutting down trees to produce the food we eat.

    TreeManAlofRIOakTownABlastcat
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Thanks for “clarifying”  a rather tricky subject 
    AlofRIOakTownA
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    i am saying that is is two-fold. climate change is invietable, yet humans are vastly contributing to itHasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history? | NOAA Climate.gov   @TreeMan
    TreeMan
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    what do you even think climate is?  . it is a specific pattern of weather conditions over a specfic amount of time based upon temperture, wind, ice, the ocean currents and many other components. @Dee
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Thank you for the heads up regards what the term climate means .....I sort of had that one figured out 
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    i am sure of that.  global warming( which is climate change ) is being hastened by humans and global warming can cause an ice age.  i am not saying it will cause one, but it can.@Dee
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1572 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Explanation of the climate crisis

    @Sonofason
    Sonofason said:
    There is no climate crisis.
    This statement is so misinformed it is staggering. Here are the facts that prove we are currently living through a climate crisis.

    1. Levels of carbon dioxide.

    Climate Change Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide  NOAA Climategov
    As the above chart shows, the current level of carbon in the atmosphere is higher than any other point in recorded human history. And it is no coincidence that the increase in levels of carbon dioxide match with the increase in annual emissions.

    What's worse is that the levels of CO₂ have now exceeded 350 parts per million, which is considered the 'safe limit' for atmospheric carbon. It is currently increasing at a rate of 2 ppm annually. If we are unable to get this figure below 350 by the end of the century, we risk irreversible impacts from climate change, or worse still passing a tipping point which leads to large changes in the state of the system, which are beyond our control. 
    But if you want evidence, you needn't look no further than the here and now.

    2: Impacts of climate change that have already occurred

    We have already seen about 1°C of global warming caused by humans, and since 1970, the global average temperature has been increasing by approximately 0.1 - 0.3°C per decade. This might not sound like much, but here are some of the impacts that climate change has already caused.
    • A decrease in Arctic sea ice

    As you can see in the above graph,, the levels of Arctic sea ice have been rapidly declining for some decades. In 1970, the lowest point was around 17,000 km³ of ice in the summer. Now it is less than 5,000km³. If this pattern continues, we will see our first ice-free summer by 2030, which could spell the end for polar bears.
    • Sea level rise
    Between 1900 and 2017, the global average sea level has increased by 16-21 cm. This is mostly due to climate change, as glaciers melt, causing a rise in sea level.
    • Heatwaves and wildfires are becoming more frequent and more severe
    Between 1850 and 1900, wildfires of the magnitude we saw in California or Australia in recent years would only have happened once every decade. Nowadays, they happen almost 3 times every decade, and are on track to exceed 4 times per decade if global warming passes 1.5°C.

    3: Future predicted impacts at both 1.5°C and 2°C of warming

    These problems ain't going away, and will continue to get drastically worse if global warming is allowed to run its course.
    Here are some of the predicted impacts of 1.5°C warming:
    • 70-90% decline in coral reefs
    • 0.4m sea level rise
    • 14% of the world population will be exposed to extreme heatwaves at least once every five years
    • 4% of vertebrate species will lose at least half their range
    • 4.8 million square kilometres of permafrost will thaw
    That's bad, but this is worse: here are some of the predicted impacts of 2°C warming, as reported by the IPCC.
    • 99% decline in coral reefs
    • 0.46m sea level rise
    • 37% of the world population will be exposed to extreme heatwaves at least once every five years
    • 8% of vertebrate species will lose at least half their range
    • 6.6 million square kilometres of permafrost will thaw
    This is the truth about climate change, determined by thousands of independent researchers, as well as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, as explained here. I don't know where you got the idea that there is no climate crisis, but what I do know is that it is misinformation, and the science is clear. There is a climate crisis, it is something to be worried about, and there are things we can do to help.

    Thanks for reading this summary of the evidence for the climate crisis, and if this didn't convince you that there is a climate crisis, I don't know what will.
    AlofRITreeManOakTownABlastcat
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -   edited August 29
    @maxx

    It can but the next one is possibly 500,000 years away according to WIKI
    xlJ_dolphin_473Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    maybew.. they are already predicting the collaspe of the gulf stream because of global warming and that can contribute to an ice age.. heck, we had a mini ice age back in the 1800s when washington crossed the deleware and that was because of a volcano that erupted in which the smoke blocked out the sun@Dee
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    TreeMan said:
    Says who? Conspiracy theorists and politicians, that know nothing about earth science?
    @Sonofason
    I don't need conspiracy theorists and politicians to see for myself that there is no climate crisis.  I can see that with my own eyes.  As an Earth Scientist, I believe I can come to my own conclusions.
    TreeManOakTownABlastcat
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    i am sure of that.  global warming( which is climate change ) is being hastened by humans and global warming can cause an ice age.  i am not saying it will cause one, but it can.@Dee
    With or without us, there will be another ice age.  And then it will warm, and then there will be another ice age...on and on until the Sun grow's so large there will be no more ice ages...but we will be long gone by then, because of climate change.
    Blastcat
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    Sonofason said:
    There is no climate crisis.
    This statement is so misinformed it is staggering. Here are the facts that prove we are currently living through a climate crisis.

    1. Levels of carbon dioxide.

    Climate Change Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide  NOAA Climategov
    As the above chart shows, the current level of carbon in the atmosphere is higher than any other point in recorded human history. And it is no coincidence that the increase in levels of carbon dioxide match with the increase in annual emissions.

    What's worse is that the levels of CO₂ have now exceeded 350 parts per million, which is considered the 'safe limit' for atmospheric carbon. It is currently increasing at a rate of 2 ppm annually. If we are unable to get this figure below 350 by the end of the century, we risk irreversible impacts from climate change, or worse still passing a tipping point which leads to large changes in the state of the system, which are beyond our control. 
    But if you want evidence, you needn't look no further than the here and now.

    2: Impacts of climate change that have already occurred

    We have already seen about 1°C of global warming caused by humans, and since 1970, the global average temperature has been increasing by approximately 0.1 - 0.3°C per decade. This might not sound like much, but here are some of the impacts that climate change has already caused.
    • A decrease in Arctic sea ice

    As you can see in the above graph,, the levels of Arctic sea ice have been rapidly declining for some decades. In 1970, the lowest point was around 17,000 km³ of ice in the summer. Now it is less than 5,000km³. If this pattern continues, we will see our first ice-free summer by 2030, which could spell the end for polar bears.
    • Sea level rise
    Between 1900 and 2017, the global average sea level has increased by 16-21 cm. This is mostly due to climate change, as glaciers melt, causing a rise in sea level.
    • Heatwaves and wildfires are becoming more frequent and more severe
    Between 1850 and 1900, wildfires of the magnitude we saw in California or Australia in recent years would only have happened once every decade. Nowadays, they happen almost 3 times every decade, and are on track to exceed 4 times per decade if global warming passes 1.5°C.

    3: Future predicted impacts at both 1.5°C and 2°C of warming

    These problems ain't going away, and will continue to get drastically worse if global warming is allowed to run its course.
    Here are some of the predicted impacts of 1.5°C warming:
    • 70-90% decline in coral reefs
    • 0.4m sea level rise
    • 14% of the world population will be exposed to extreme heatwaves at least once every five years
    • 4% of vertebrate species will lose at least half their range
    • 4.8 million square kilometres of permafrost will thaw
    That's bad, but this is worse: here are some of the predicted impacts of 2°C warming, as reported by the IPCC.
    • 99% decline in coral reefs
    • 0.46m sea level rise
    • 37% of the world population will be exposed to extreme heatwaves at least once every five years
    • 8% of vertebrate species will lose at least half their range
    • 6.6 million square kilometres of permafrost will thaw
    This is the truth about climate change, determined by thousands of independent researchers, as well as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, as explained here. I don't know where you got the idea that there is no climate crisis, but what I do know is that it is misinformation, and the science is clear. There is a climate crisis, it is something to be worried about, and there are things we can do to help.

    Thanks for reading this summary of the evidence for the climate crisis, and if this didn't convince you that there is a climate crisis, I don't know what will.
    Why would I care about this?  You, me, every single person on this planet is going to die.  So What?
    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
  • DarthBallsDarthBalls 20 Pts   -   edited August 29
    And yet the same politicians who preach about climate change, throw shade and make it harder on the technologies that have the greatest chance of solving the issues. Nuclear for example. They also just handcuffed crypto which was showing some promise in the space.

    Originally called global warming, now called climate change.  I don't deny that it's occuring but the level at which it's occuring, how it will affect the environment, and the solutions are very complex. Politicians using fear to gain power, control, and implement their governmental worldview.  People looking to teenage girls as an example. This doesn't help.

    I would much rather have a debate over proposed solutions. 
     @TreeMan
    xlJ_dolphin_473

    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    i am not sure what polititions you are talking about who preach about but make it harder for solutions;  as well, climate change was not  called global warming; global warming is the type of climate change the earth  is coming too in this period of time. climate change can be any pattern of weather that changes over time.  a solution to global warming?  perhaps, but a solution to climate change is impossible because climate will always change, with or with out humans. @DarthBalls
    Blastcat
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1572 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    So, what do you care about? Do you care about family members that are currently children? Do you care about your country? Do you care about people in general? Or do you care about nature?

    If you care about any of these things, you should care about climate change. Every generation that refuses to take action on climate change is simply passing on the blame to a future generation. And if you simply say ‘science will take care of it’ without doing anything to aid the development of said science, you are relying on something that doesn’t exist to save the planet that you live on.

    What’s worse is that there are species of animals, like polar bears, who are completely at the mercy of humanity, and are already suffering the effects of climate change. And there is nothing they can do to save themselves.

    For these reasons, I believe it is our responsibility to take a stand for humanity and for the other species of this planet, and take action against climate change. I welcome any further questions or contentions.
    TreeManBlastcat
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    So, what do you care about? Do you care about family members that are currently children? Do you care about your country? Do you care about people in general? Or do you care about nature?

    If you care about any of these things, you should care about climate change. Every generation that refuses to take action on climate change is simply passing on the blame to a future generation. And if you simply say ‘science will take care of it’ without doing anything to aid the development of said science, you are relying on something that doesn’t exist to save the planet that you live on.

    What’s worse is that there are species of animals, like polar bears, who are completely at the mercy of humanity, and are already suffering the effects of climate change. And there is nothing they can do to save themselves.

    For these reasons, I believe it is our responsibility to take a stand for humanity and for the other species of this planet, and take action against climate change. I welcome any further questions or contentions.
    I live every day that I am alive.  I take care and care for my family, while they are alive.  If they die, I will care for them no longer.  If I die, I will care for them no longer.  I care about the country in which I live.  I don't care about the people in other countries, and how they live, or if they die.  My family will die.  Some of them will die before I do.  All of them will likely suffer in their death.  I hope each of them die a sudden death.  I hope I die a sudden death.  But that is unlikely.  The odds are that we will suffer in our death.  So be it.

    If you want to make some rules in the country where I live...go ahead.  With some authority, those rules could be enforced.  I'll be happy to follow them if they should be imposed.  But I am not about to fear climate change any more than I fear getting in the car to drive to work.  If it kills me, I'll be dead.  If I should suffer in my death, then I will suffer.  So what?  Polar bears are cute...but I don't need them, and I am not affraid if they should all die.  We all die in our own time.
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    you should at first clarify what part of climate change you are refering to.  i assume that you mean global warming.  one can never stop any type of climate change;  global warming perhaps; but stopping it will only produce another change. @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Blastcat
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    Thanks for “clarifying”  a rather tricky subject 
    I am not clarifying the subject, instead am simply saying a grievance that directly describes a united state to the topic of climate change. I am asked publicly to hold as a union to the American United States Constitution, the basic principle is spoking in such a way as to deceive and hide criminal allegations of harm. There is no trick Dee the climate on earth will change no matter what and all life on earth will die. The argument is over the timetable in which this event "end of all life" will take place Climate manipulation on a natural level cannot be changed and the end result is not only human extinction but the extinction of all life as we know it. 

    I get it! Do you? The world is going to end according to science and the timetable for this destruction is not clear. Fixing any Co2 issue will cost less than half of all price of research conducted to blame Co2 as an issue/problem. The political goal however is to bind a united state of solution which does not require the use of embargo and tariffs to offset competitive imbalances of what has become more than just labor cost over the last few decades. 

    The basic argument of grievance is making a mountain of spending out of an anthill of a problem, global environmental change. The projected outcome of climate change as a scientific whole is not proportional to the amount of human climate manipulation created. What makes the ideas of the findings of science questionable is the excuse for poor planning and building practice conducted on what has been barrier Islands. We can add the creation of new flood zones by an increase of size the damming of water by volume. On a more direct focus of grievance, we can say the money and time spent on the accumulation of solar and wind power by direct conversion to electricity has turned out to be detrimental to prudent energy use planning as well. 
    Blastcat
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    Thanks for “clarifying”  a rather tricky subject 
    I am not clarifying the subject, instead am simply saying a grievance that directly describes a united state to the topic of climate change. I am asked publicly to hold as a union to the American United States Constitution, the basic principle is spoking in such a way as to deceive and hide criminal allegations of harm. There is no trick Dee the climate on earth will change no matter what and all life on earth will die. The argument is over the timetable in which this event "end of all life" will take place Climate manipulation on a natural level cannot be changed and the end result is not only human extinction but the extinction of all life as we know it. 

    I get it! Do you? The world is going to end according to science and the timetable for this destruction is not clear. Fixing any Co2 issue will cost less than half of all price of research conducted to blame Co2 as an issue/problem. The political goal however is to bind a united state of solution which does not require the use of embargo and tariffs to offset competitive imbalances of what has become more than just labor cost over the last few decades. 

    The basic argument of grievance is making a mountain of spending out of an anthill of a problem, global environmental change. The projected outcome of climate change as a scientific whole is not proportional to the amount of human climate manipulation created. What makes the ideas of the findings of science questionable is the excuse for poor planning and building practice conducted on what has been barrier Islands. We can add the creation of new flood zones by an increase of size the damming of water by volume. On a more direct focus of grievance, we can say the money and time spent on the accumulation of solar and wind power by direct conversion to electricity has turned out to be detrimental to prudent energy use planning as well. 
    Well said, accurate and true.
    Blastcat
  • TreeMan said:
    Despite having unanimous agreement from the scientific community that man-made climate change is real, some people still believe right-wing politicians, who know nothing on the topic, than experts in the field. 
    They are not experts in the field of Climate manipulation scientists are professionals in data process management and collection. The amount of money spent on a particular job, as line of study does not dictate expertise in a broader scope of the understanding any study creates. In this instance the creation of solutions and problem-solving.

    This statement is so misinformed it is staggering. Here are the facts that prove we are currently living through a climate crisis.  The statement: "There is no climate crisis"
    The crisis is the scientific fact we will not under any condition ever service on earth, earth climate change. Period, end of the story. What can be done.
    Addressing issues as they come from discovery Water level and Co2 lever can be placed into a united state and under basic principle become eliminated rather quickly in the understanding of geological global events.
    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    not completely.  again, global warming is only one type of climate change; it only happens to be the one we are  going through at the moment.  corrrecting global warming will only produce another climate change.  even if the earth  dropped to a level of relative calm weather pattern that humans find benificial, that also is a climate change. we can not control climate. and it is a moot point on if the change the world is going through now would have happened anyway, regardlesss of human contribution.  sooner or later, due to one form or other, our oxygen levels will begin to deplete and our atmosphere will thin. global warming is but just one type of climate change.  Is there a solution that will simply not cause some other problem?  I doubt it. @Sonofason
    Blastcat
  • Why would I care about this?  You, me, every single person on this planet is going to die.  So What?
    All life existing in the known universe will end. As far as can be seen, the planetary concept of the lifeboat is a blowup floatation ring, made for swimming pools we buy ourselves at Walmart in a summer clearance sale.
    Blastcat
  • @maxx

    We can not control climate.
    Bull crap...
    Existence beyond earth dictates we can and do console climate. FYI it also does not mean we are playing GOD it simply means we have been given the opritunity to take full advantage of holding all known life as a united state. 

    Is there a solution that will simply not cause some other problem? 
    Yes, it starts with the end of General Relativity. When a fact is no longer generally relative to another fact, one problem does not create a second problem, all problems only occur as they take place naturally. Scary science fact Hu! Maxx?
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    promblems are of infintie regress.  a solution hto one has always created  another.  we can not control climate of a world, i was not tlaking about climate  confinement in a ship. I am talking about controling long range weather patterns.  we are not talking about quantum mechanics, but the problems in the macro world, and general relativity plays an ongoing part in it. what is the solution to global warming that will not create other problems,?@John_C_87
    Blastcat
  • @maxx

    i was not talking about climate confinement in a ship. I am talking about controlling long-range weather patterns. 
    In basic principle this is a lie and the most cost-effective way to control long-term weather patterns is to create the environment targeted for weather control. Right? This principle is unilateral or even scientifically backed by research data.
  • DarthBallsDarthBalls 20 Pts   -   edited August 29
    @maxx

    Clearly I'm referring to the man made warming problem they are attempting to fix.

    Politicians that were against nuclear power and who are placing high regulation on crypto industry. Politicians that will only focus on renewable when cleaner and more efficient natural gas can be implemented around the world including developing and under developed countries.
    They show their true intentions when they hamper the private industry from creating solutions...more power and control.

    In fact, the U.S. could cut its carbon dioxide emissions 100 percent and it would not make a difference in abating global warming.

    Using the same climate sensitivity (the warming effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide emissions) as the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its modeling, the world would be only 0.137 degree Celsius cooler by 2100. Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would merely avert warming by 0.278 degree Celsius by the turn of the century. 

    One of the biggest sources of carbon dioxide emissions is developing countries. 

    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    again, which politictians?@DarthBalls
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -   edited August 29
    not upon the whole earth, no.  you would have to contain it in itself..  @John_C_87
  • not upon the whole earth, no.  you would have to contain it in itself.
    What makes you a poor witness of facts is you do not understand we have already said it is being done on all of the earth. This makes Dee, maxx, and many, many, others people all part of the same fraud, only presuming innocence that it is not a criminal fraud taking place for money in the direct line view of politics.
    Blastcat
  • @DarthBalls
     Even if we assumed every other industrialized country would be equally on board, this would
    The constitutional point in any alignment of our state of the union does not require other industrialized nations to have to be part of the connections made on basic principle. In realistic terms when assuming command of an outcome of proportion the achieved realistic benefits soon become seen by others and mimic is the practiced way of fruitful survival.

    I will say it again clearly a canal from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific ocean is an American necessity. The point of being of global significance is the subject of necessity to a state of the union at the establishment of International Eminent domain.
    Blastcat
  • The construction of infrastructure such as a canal-like reconditioning of the Mississippi River north to south was an American self-contained application of the necessity of Eminent domain.
    Blastcat
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1572 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    If you could do something that has no adverse effect on you, but would help your children live longer and healthier lives, would you do it?
    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    no, that is absurd.. we are contributing to climate change on the whole earth, i agree, but it is random. we are not controlling it and in no way slowing global warming. you stated we can control climate upon the whole earth with out creating addtional problems.  explain @John_C_87
    Blastcat
  • DarthBallsDarthBalls 20 Pts   -   edited August 30
    @maxx

    A lot of them on the left. They were against nuclear power...look at the green new deal.  Additionally they just put crypto legislation in an infrastructure bill which will hinder development in the space.

    While the gas itself wasn't green, the pipeline would have been a greener way to transport oil/gas.

    Outlined in a 538 page Congressional Action Plan. Among many other proposals, it promises no new gasoline cars by 2035, ending fossil fuels in the power sector by 2040, and reducing the net emissions from the U.S. to zero by 2050.

    Why?  Even if we are able to afford and produce this level of effort...developing countries cannot.  Why are we hindering our ability to solve the issues of carbon emissions in fossil fuels which is what developing countries will continue to use.
    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxx said:
    no, that is absurd.. we are contributing to climate change on the whole earth, i agree, but it is random. we are not controlling it and in no way slowing global warming. you stated we can control climate upon the whole earth with out creating addtional problems.  explain @John_C_87
    No, it is scientific fact and in no way absurd. I'm not making an assumption the idea of climate change and warmth had started with air conditioning that has been made by climate scientists. We are speaking of scale and on a global scale changing earth's temperature is as easy as making homemade ice cream. All that is needed is to convince the democracy to spend a massive amount of money on salt. How hard was that? Linking it to any one group of people might be hard to prove however the negligence of action is not hard to prove.

    No, the human race is masters of climate change and it is this fact that was the scientific catalyst to payment. It always has been. 
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    oh really? salt?  to do what with it> make it rain? ypu think rain will cool the earth? with no problems? just epxlain in detail as to what you mean asnd forget the politics@John_C_87
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    do you really believe that new forms of energy will stop human contribution to global warming?@DarthBalls
  • DarthBallsDarthBalls 20 Pts   -   edited August 29
    @maxx

    Well on some level it should if the cause is increased CO2.
    But I don't think it needs to come from straight renewable. Figuring out ways to make near carbon free emissions from fossil fuels may help even more.
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    If you could do something that has no adverse effect on you, but would help your children live longer and healthier lives, would you do it?
    Everything I do helps my children live longer healthier and happier lives.
    Blastcat
  • @maxx
    oh really? salt? 
    Yes maxx 'anyone without a substantial amount of high-end schooling can prove how society can evidently move or intentionally move a large amount of heat. Though it is not just salt calcium chloride also can melts ice. The logic is identical to that of the loss of ice at the polar caps only it is performed on a much larger area of basic temperature shifts.
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    @Sonofason
    If you could do something that has no adverse effect on you, but would help your children live longer and healthier lives, would you do it?
    Everything I do helps my children live longer healthier and happier lives.
    Then shouldn't you support taking action against climate change, and conserving the environment?
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1572 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason
    Please answer the question: if you could do something that would have no adverse effect on you whatsoever, but would enable your children (and their children, etc) to live longer and healthier lives, would you do it?
    TreeManBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    gee i dont know.  i thought that at the best would reflect the suns rays.  it would do nothing to curb the run-away green house effect@John_C_87
  • @maxx
    it would do nothing to curb the run-away greenhouse effect.

    Something is Scientifically unclear in what you are questioning,  i thought that "Ice and snow turned to water" at the best would reflect the suns rays. 
    Ice and snow that is -3
      ° Celcius when kept in an environment of 0 ° Celcius will not allow the area covered to warm?

    Are you saying a few well places, well-designed power accumulators could no change the Co2 levels on earth in the right hands?
    -Or-
    Melting ice that would normally sit for months in one place will have no effect on temperature when removed in hours or days?

    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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