The debate "Sanders saying global warming causes terrism is extremely stupid." was started by
November 16, 2015, 9:12 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Alex posted 8 arguments, liberalssuck posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 10 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Alex, MarlemR, AnnaRrei, benhawthorne, WaspToxin, AstroSpace, liberalssuck, Tiredandred, DannyknowsItAll, Band_Nerd_24, fredtyu, TonganCaillou, Evan22 and 9 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, PsychDave, omactivate and 2 visitors disagree.
The debate here is simply whether or not his case is intellectually defensible. As I've said, I think he overstated the case and should have called it a contributing factor, however arguing over vernacular instead of syntax seems like a weak case to claim something is intellectually indefensible (I'm using this as a working definition for stupidity, let me know if you have any objections to that being a working definition)
I don't really want to get into the sea ice debate since it's extremely complicated and it seems like you probably haven't done the research into the scientific explanation for the phenomenon, and I don't want to explain polynyas, cyclonic winds etc... But the fact is that ocean Temps (including Antarctic ocean Temps) have been on a steady upward trend. If you want to discuss this, I'd be more than happy to, but I'd only do it if you have a solid fundamental understanding of the factors involved. If you can demonstrate a working knowledge of unique properties that factor into Antarctic sea ice formation then I'd be happy to discuss it further. However claiming that increased sea ice in the Antarctic is proof positive that climate change doesn't exist without acknowledging the limiting factors of that argument shows a certain level of ignorance on the subject.
I'm also not going to discuss unfounded conspiracy theories. If you can prove that there is a worldwide conspiracy to push a climate agenda then do so. If you can't prove it, then I don't consider it a valid argument.
I don't want to diminish your point of view, You can have any opinion you like, but for the sake of debate, we should only deal in facts, evidence, and the conclusions which can reasonably be drawn from them.
From 2007 to 2010 there was a drought in the Fertile Crescent. However, the drought was mainly along the Iraq and Iranian border. There was some drought in Syria. The National Academy of Science said in a a statement that global warming could be a "multiplier" of instability throughout the world. Even the Department of Defense cannot directly link between the growth of terrorism and global warming. Sanders is basing his words off a broad spectrum at best. Many scientists refute global warming, but when they do they are either fired or discredited. Al Gores ideas have been proven a lie. Thus a logical conclusion to come to is that there is not enough evidence for global warming. It could be a possibility, it's hard to ignore the fact that ice is growing in the southern hemisphere
The fact that droughts caused the civil uprising in Syria is undeniable. The point of contention is then whether or not you attribute these droughts to climate change. The science is pretty conclusive, the climate is changing. Now, the more contentious point is whether or not this change is man made or what percentage is man made. This however is irrelevant since the claim doesn't speak to man made or natural climate change. He's simply making a connection between climate change, droughts, and instability of a region contributing to the growth of terrorism.
You would have to prove a pretty big conspiracy in order to demonstrate that his position is intellectually indefensible. Are you able to make the case that his position is intellectually indefensible?
If I have come off as an a**hole I do apologize. I find it frustrating when someone is smart as you and doesn't see what's going on. I say that because like I said before many "bipartisan" groups are pushing a political agenda for their own benefit
again, this is an example alone. I'm not trying to argue about the civil war
We are learning more about stress and it's effects on the human body. Over 60% of illnesses are caused by stress. (beside the point)
OK in your statement earlier, Sanders is saying that terrorism is growing because of global warming? If that is the case then yes that is a lie or a fallacy in judgment. There is no evidence to support the claim except the one's who have a political agenda.
Now with some of your evidence from the pentagon and some of our military have a political agenda behind them. That is fact. Some retired high ranking military personnel have said the opposite on the "facts" our pentagon have released.
I will use one example. I watched a video released by our government using a pentagon spokesperson who "supposedly is a military historian. The video was about the civil war and how it was fought for slavery (the South) and freeing of the slaves (the north). I proceeded to write to the one's who produced the video on the lies they told and brought forth facts about the war. Needless to say they have not written me back. Thus the only logical conclusion I could come to is that in today's world our military men and women associated with the the pentagon and white house are pushing a political agenda and is not bipartisan as we haven't been lead to believe
If you're going to quote me and/or sanders, then do it correctly.
Climate change is not responsible for the rise of terrorism. That would imply it has a causal relationship.
Sanders said: "climate change is directly linked to the GROWTH of terrorism" implying a correlative effect. Meaning that the conditions caused by climate change were to the benefit of groups like ISIS. However, it has no ideological influence.
A direct link also does not indicate it being the main cause. There is a direct link between heart attacks and stress, however, that is far from saying stress is the main reason for heart attacks...
you quoted it. I'm going off what you said
Sanders said "directly related to the rise of ISIS". When something is directly related to something else, hence the main reason
Wow....I am awestruck with the level of ignorance that had to go into the statement you just made. I'll try and go through it as best I can though.
First, no one changed the argument. It would he nice if ISIS was a mono-causal problem. That we could just point at one thing and say, yeah, that's the cause. Unfortunately we can't. Bush destabilizing Iraq is a big reason for why ISIS was able to take hold there, drought was a big reason why ISIS could take hold in Syria, decades of foreign intervention caused a public hate for westerners allowing radical thought to flourish, Islamic doctrine is in part to blame for catering to certain interpretations of the texts, etc... Trying to turn this into a "climate change caused ISIS" argument except you.
Climate change is a contributing factor is all the argument is about. Furthermore, it's not a liberal argument. It's a fact detailed in both Pentagon and department of Defense reports along with other geopolitical think tanks.
Again, this isn't a debate about climate change being real or man made or whatever you want to claim. It's an argument about whether or not Bernie Sanders' argument is intellectually defensible. You have to show that it isn't in order to win here. If you want to debate climate change, there are plenty of open threads already, or you can start a new one.
Wait so liberals are changing their arguments? I thought it was still Bush's fault for everything? I thought since he invaded Iraq he created a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.
Oh yeah your examples oh mighty one. The French meteorologist who was fired for saying "global warming" was a lie. It happened about a month ago. The fact that everything Al Gore said turned out to be a lie. The ice in the Antarctic Circle (the South pole) is actually growing; fun fact.
What else do you need oh great one?
As I said, I believe he overstated his case and could have been more articulate in presenting his ideas. However, that is far from being able to say that his statement was "stupid". There is a direct link to the GROWTH of terrorism. That is to say that is very unlikely that ISIS would have been able to take over Syria had it not been for the prior destabilization from droughts which caused riots and the armed response from the government which in turn lead to the civil war which ISIS then capitalized on....there is a direct link in that climate change causes geopolitical conditions in which terrorism can flourish. So it's a direct link to the growth of terrorism, not terrorism itself. Which is exactly what he said.
His intent, however, was probably to connect climate change with national security. Whether you believe in man made climate change or not, it's not at all unreasonable to look at the climate patterns and realize that we need to have a more comprehensive geopolitical policy in place which starts to look at climate and it's factors as a contributing factor to a lot of conflicts. It will help us anticipate problems, come up with better diplomatic solutions which address potential future conflicts, etc...
I can see how a drought causes people to get mar, and resort to terrism. I can see that a drought is the result of climate change, and this name for the climate change is global warmming, we cause global warmming by driving our cars, so we are, by driving directly related to terrism.
no, global warmming may play a small part in terrism, but not a huge part, and certainly not a direct link.
Alex. You continue to make strawman arguments. No on is saying droughts caused terrorism.
The Pentagon and DOD have both put out reports that literally state: droughts caused by climate change destabilized Syria allowing ISIS to get a foot hold in the region. That is a direct relationship to terrorism...as I've said, sanders may be guilty of overstating his case since not all terrorism is linked to climate change, but there is definitely a correlation that experts in the field acknowledge.
Can you please cite your sources or expert opinions that refute these statements?
Alex, drinking can be directly related to getting pregnant (since people make poor decisions while drunk) but drinking does not cause pregnancy. That is the kind of relationship Sanders was describing. The more unrest, poverty and suffering people endure, the more likely they are to resort to extreme solutions to solve them. If an extremist group claims to be able to provide for your family so your children don't starve to death, a starving family might listen where a prosperous family would not.
no one but you said that one caused the other. Sanders said they were related. I have shown you how they are related.
They are directly related, yet one does not cause the other.
climate change creates widespread poverty. poverty is a breeding ground for terrorist groups. that seems like a pretty direct relation.
are they DIRECTLY related? maby kinda related but directly?
I will try this again. you have a successful farmer with 3 sons. they are happy. a drought hits and the farmer is ruined. he can't support his family and his sons have no work. they are left with no money and no future. when people are unhappy and desperate they turn to extreme solutions. communism, fascism, Islamism. all of these find supporters among the poor and disenfranchised. so the more droughts and floods and other climate change related events destroy people's livelihoods the more vulnerable they are to extremism like terrorism. therefore they are related. a drought didn't make someone a terrorist, but it can make someone desperate enough to turn to terrorism.
you are saying because of a drought people turn to terrism, but droughts don't cause terrism?
you don't see this is what sanders is saying?
he also said DIRECTLY related.
related does not mean causes. so yes it is a straw man argument. people being poor and vulnerable (from a flood or drought) makes them more likely to look for extreme answers to their problems and turn to a terrorist cause. so they are related. but it doesn't cause it.
of course the climate is changing, it always is, of course there are floods and droughts. of course people hate them.
In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,"
that's a direct quote, from sanders when asked in the debate.
he said they were DIRECTLY related. my argument is no strawman argument.
sorry my bad
No, from NASA.
Do you have a rebuttal?
did you find that from cnn
Alex and BigB,
You both are denying that climate change exists and even going so far as to say experts say it is a "farce" but you don't cite which experts say this. 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate change exists and we are causing it. Could you provide some kind of reference to where your expert opinions come from that they are more informed than nearly all researchers looking into it?
Sure, you'd expect flooding in other pars of the world.... I don't know why you'd think that was something that would be shocking... It sounds like you don't actually understand climate change and the implications.
Sanders also never said climate change cause terrorism. Alex, you misquoted sanders and made this into a strawman arguments (look it up of you don't know what that means.)
if you read the sources I provided, you'd see that ISIS was strengthened by the instability the droughts cause.
Your opinion on global warming is irrelevant. You'd have to scientifically disprove it in order to have a valid argument.
If you can do that, then I'd listen to you, until then all you're doing is asserting without proof.
ISIS kills because of religion. correct? not because they are mad about an imaginary drought?
global warming can cause whatever the hell you want it to, because it's fake! "I could give you proof for global warming causing floods too.
Alex. Before you start making claims you should probably research them first.
Isis has killed more Muslims than non Muslims.
Second, of course global warming causes droughts. There are multiple academic publications on the subject.
Again, you provide no evidence or reasoning for your claims, so I can dismiss them just as easily.
terrists, like ISIS attack because people are not muslem. does it matter if there is a drought? not really.
also global warming makes the globe warmer, it does not cause there to be less water.
the topic has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real. The topic only pertains to whether or not Sanders was stupid in linking it to terrorism. With the information available, I don't see how you can make the case that it is. When the DOD, pentagon, academic papers, etc... show that climate change is connected to terrorism. So please, show me how Sanders is "stupid" by making his claim. If you can't, then you don't have a case. You need to back up your claim with rational, sources, etc... If you can't do that, I can dismiss your claim with no evidence, sources, or rational.
wow, your logic is undeniable. All people connected to the same political ideology. Please oh enlightened one give us a better argument. haha, if it was "fact" then why do so many experts also say it is a farce?
First, Sanders said: "Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism....If we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re gonna see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict."
This is distinctly different than what Alex is claiming he said, so you start the argument with a misrepresentation of the original statement....not a great start to building a strong case. He isn't claiming that terrorism is caused by global warming, but rather that global warming is a contributing factor to the growth of terrorism.
While I think Sanders overstated his case, however, it is far from being a stupid thing to say. There are plenty of sources connecting climate change to terrorism. So I don't think it's a stupid thing to say, its simply a case of overstating a case.
Obama in a May 2015 speech: "Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world. Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram."
The Defense Department in a 2014 report: "In our defense strategy, we refer to climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism. We are already beginning to see some of these impacts."
Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, then-commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in 2013 that the significant upheaval related to the warming planet "is probably the most likely thing that is going to happen … that will cripple the security environment."
a paper published in the academic journal PNAS earlier this year argues that climate change helped create instability and fighting in Syria. The Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, arose in the country in large part due to that instability.
Marcus D. King, an expert on climate change and international affairs at George Washington University:
“Climate change and water shortages may have triggered the drought that cause farmers to relocate to Syrian cities and triggered situations where youth were more susceptible to joining extremist groups.”