Proposal: That the current global warming trend is a result of human activity

Status
Not open for further replies.
James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
I propose a Team Debate on the following topic:

"That the current global warming is a result of human activity."

I will argue on the affirmative side. I challenge Buffalo Roam, in particular, to take the negative side.

This is potentially a big topic, and I do not have a lot of time at present for this kind of debate. Therefore, I propose a teams debate, with several people arguing each side of the debate. I think a good number of people in each team would be 3-4, although if enough people are interested this could be made slightly larger (I suggest not more than about 6 per team, max).

On the affirmative side, I invite Trippy to join me.
On the negative side, I invite madanthonywayne to join Buffalo Roam.
I invite any other interested participants to express your interest here.

I suggest that [thread=76020]Standard Rules for Team Debates apply[/thread], with the following modifications:

* Rule 5 will be altered to allow a break in the debate over Christmas if either team requests such a break. Details of this can be worked out below.
* Rule 10 will be modified to allow a longer post length (to be negotiated). I would like some limits on quoting, however, to avoid people going to town on cut-and-paste.

All of the above is negotiable, including the precise wording of the topic.

All interested parties, please respond in this thread. Thanks.

PS I note for the record that Buffalo Roam has previously agreed that global warming is actually occurring at present. link

This debate will not cover the fact of global warming. It will be understood that all participants in this debate accept the bare fact of global warming. Those on the Negative side have the task simply of showing that the warming (which they accept is occurring) is not caused by human actions.
 
To points of clarification, James:

1. What's the tipping point, James? (i.e., what does "is a result of human activity" mean?) The extremes: If even one scintilla of the current global warming is caused by us then global warming is a result of human activity, versus if even one scintilla of the current global warming is natural then global warming is not a result of human activity. A bit of a straw man, perhaps, but these extremes do suggest the need for a threshold. Otherwise all parties will walk away thinking their side won.

2. What does "current" mean? I could easily see one side interpreting it as meaning since 1975, and the other arguing that current means since 1600 (or since 2000).
 
D H said:
To points of clarification, James:

1. What's the tipping point, James? (i.e., what does "is a result of human activity" mean?) The extremes: If even one scintilla of the current global warming is caused by us then global warming is a result of human activity, versus if even one scintilla of the current global warming is natural then global warming is not a result of human activity. A bit of a straw man, perhaps, but these extremes do suggest the need for a threshold. Otherwise all parties will walk away thinking their side won.

2. What does "current" mean? I could easily see one side interpreting it as meaning since 1975, and the other arguing that current means since 1600 (or since 2000).
Click to expand...

Or even the Current Quaternary glaciation.
 
That is not "current", and that is exactly why I suggested that James define the term.
 
I propose that if this is to be a points based debate, that individuals resorting to ad-hominem's such as 'Anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy' should loose significant numbers of points for their team.

After all, if a valid argument is there to be made, then there should be no need to resort to such logical fallacies and rudeness now should there?
 
D H said:
To points of clarification, James:

1. What's the tipping point, James? (i.e., what does "is a result of human activity" mean?)
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear those who wish to argue the Negative suggest an answer to this. If they cannot do so, I'll make a suggestion later.

What would you suggest?

Also, do you wish to argue for one side or the other (i.e. participate in the debate)?

2. What does "current" mean? I could easily see one side interpreting it as meaning since 1975, and the other arguing that current means since 1600 (or since 2000).
Click to expand...

I'm willing to negotiate on that. By "current warming", I would be happy to restrict the discussion to a period from, say, 1975 onwards. If there are no takers for that, we could look back at the entire 20th century. If there are still no takers, we could go back to the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Further back than that and we're not talking about carbon dioxide generated primarily from fossil fuels, so the debate becomes less relevant.
 
Moderator note: Several off-topic posts have been deleted. Members are advised to read the posting rules for the Formal Debates forum before posting in it.

In particular, I draw Buffalo Roam's attention to the purpose of Proposal threads. They are for establishing the participants and parameters of a Formal Debate. They are not for debating the topic.

Ad hominem attacks on other posters certainly will not be tolerated in this subforum, except in a debate where there has been prior agreement that ad hominem attacks will be allowed.
 
James R said:
I'm willing to negotiate on that. By "current warming", I would be happy to restrict the discussion to a period from, say, 1975 onwards. If there are no takers for that, we could look back at the entire 20th century. If there are still no takers, we could go back to the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Further back than that and we're not talking about carbon dioxide generated primarily from fossil fuels, so the debate becomes less relevant.
Click to expand...
I'm also willing to negotiate on what's considered recent.
 
How about "is a result of human activity" is defined as all warming divergent from normals since the industrial revolution.
 
Cheski:

The problem is defining "normal". Buffalo Roam will argue that ANY global warming is "normal", I am sure. If the current warming happens to be larger or faster than in the past, he would argue that this is a result of "normal", natural processes.
 
James R said:
Cheski:

The problem is defining "normal". Buffalo Roam will argue that ANY global warming is "normal", I am sure. If the current warming happens to be larger or faster than in the past, he would argue that this is a result of "normal", natural processes.
Click to expand...

Yes, Cheski:

The problem is defining "normal" James R will argue that ANY global warming, is not "normal", I am sure.

If the current warming happens to be smaller or if cooling occurs that is not normal, and still the FAULT of MAN, and Co2.


I find this extreamly funny as that is exactly how the Global Warming Orthodoxy is defining the debate, only now it's called.... Climate Change, and the warming or cooling is still caused by Anthropogenic Actions.

So Head They WIN!!!! Tails I LOSE.:eek:
 
James R said:
Cheski:

The problem is defining "normal". Buffalo Roam will argue that ANY global warming is "normal", I am sure. If the current warming happens to be larger or faster than in the past, he would argue that this is a result of "normal", natural processes.
Click to expand...

James R ?

James R said:
Moderator note: Several off-topic posts have been deleted. Members are advised to read the posting rules for the Formal Debates forum before posting in it.

In particular, I draw Buffalo Roam's attention to the purpose of Proposal threads. They are for establishing the participants and parameters of a Formal Debate. They are not for debating the topic.

Ad hominem attacks on other posters certainly will not be tolerated in this subforum, except in a debate where there has been prior agreement that ad hominem attacks will be allowed.
Click to expand...

You wonder why I question your impartiality in moderating any thread, I remember a lot of "Whimp Out accusations" does that qualify as a:

Ad hominem attack​

?​
 
Buffalo Roam said:
The problem is defining "normal" James R will argue that ANY global warming, is not "normal", I am sure.

If the current warming happens to be smaller or if cooling occurs that is not normal, and still the FAULT of MAN, and Co2.
Click to expand...

You have already agreed that the world is not currently cooling, so that is a non-issue.

As for the rest, it can be thrashed out in the actual debate. We don't have to agree on what is "normal" in advance. You can define your own "normal" and we'll argue it out.

So, are you in for this debate or out, Buffalo Roam?

Since it looks like you're just stringing things along and trying to avoid committing one way or another, I now place a time limit on your acceptance.

If you have no agreed to debate this topic by the end of this Friday, I will assume you concede defeat. Four days should give you more than enough time to make up your mind. I am still open to any suggestions for variations in rules, topic etc.
 
James R said:
You have already agreed that the world is not currently cooling, so that is a non-issue.

As for the rest, it can be thrashed out in the actual debate. We don't have to agree on what is "normal" in advance. You can define your own "normal" and we'll argue it out.

So, are you in for this debate or out, Buffalo Roam?

Since it looks like you're just stringing things along and trying to avoid committing one way or another, I now place a time limit on your acceptance.

If you have no agreed to debate this topic by the end of this Friday, I will assume you concede defeat. Four days should give you more than enough time to make up your mind. I am still open to any suggestions for variations in rules, topic etc.
Click to expand...

I may still require 'special consideration' for lack of a better way of putting it, when it comes to response time frames (personal commitments and all that rot).
 
That's fine, Trippy. I don't think Buffalo Roam will be willing to debate this topic for real anyway.
 
Buffalo Roam:

No. For example, I informed you three times about your misconceptions about Milankovich cycles as a possible explanation for the current warming trend, but you continued to repeat the same incorrect mantra as if you hadn't heard.

You're afraid to have a real debate. Just admit it and we can move on.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
So James R am I not debating you? this is not a debate? with citation, of reference, and facts as known?

And, James, just because you don't accept this as debate doesn't mean that a debate isn't taking place and you keep ducking it because you don't agree with the premiss, as the only thing you will agree to is your define Orthodox.
Click to expand...

Its a simple Yes or No answer Buffalo.

Do you, or do you not accept the challenge to have a formal debate, adhering to the Standard Rules for Debates, Here, in the Formal Debates subforum, moderated by a third party (SuperString has offered).

Yes?
Or
No?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top