The debate "Those who perpetuated Global Warming have no intention of making civilization more eco friendly" was started by
November 22, 2018, 8:00 am.
30 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
jrardin12 posted 4 arguments, Brynn posted 3 arguments, Jakellutis posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Brynn posted 11 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, Debater23, Dushonjj2, MrShine, Jakellutis, WiseWords, nativeRepublican and 23 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, TJ, Brynn, Coriander, TheExistentialist, Yonekun, SMNR and 13 visitors disagree.
you do understand that an atmosphere doesnt normally evaporate?
if you think methane and co2 will eventually leave into outer space, then wont oxygen disappear eventually to? especially with our population explosion breathing it all in? (hint: it wont)
I'm afraid your running on alot of assumptions that are very wrong.
Actually; Methane itself isn't being released in quantities anywhere close to CO/CO2; however Methane is a much more potent Greenhouse gas.
What do you think the Atmosphere does if not "trap" gases? How do you think Oxygen isn't just escaping into space?
We can actually measure the sources of greenhouse gas through Satellite infrared imaging. Japan has launched GOSAT which is equipped with TANSO-FTS and TANSO-CAI. It has a spectrometer on board and so it can actually determine the source of the greenhouse gas. The majority of the CO2 on the atmosphere is human caused (we can measure byproducts of combustion ionically bonded to CO2 molecules which tell us the source). We have determined that we are overloading the planets natural CO2 recycling system with human caused CO2 emission.
If you still don't believe in Climate change at this point, it's just willful ignorance, nothing more.
Jake it isn't just cows. Cows/farms contribute I think like 40% of the greenhouse gasses humans pump into the atmosphere. They are the main contributers. There's still 60% of other things but cows are the main cause.
Lol Nem I tried
Sure methane gas disperses into the atmosphere adding to green house gasses.
That's bullshit. Literally. Cows are killing our planet? Methane gas will disperse eventually. It's not gonna keep collecting heat until everyone dies from it.
also, your completely misunderstanding how global warming is working. the sun doesnt increase or decrease output except for short bursts. global warming is about GREENHOUSE GASES
do you know how a greenhouse works? it traps heat inside of it keeping the environment warm for tropical plants in colder climates. it let's heat in, but doesnt let it out.
Greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane trap heat on the earth so even if the sun doesnt increase heat, that heat keeps building up inside of our atmosphere raising the temperature.
just because you dont understand the mechanism doesnt mean its fake science. just like you thought the only solution to animals producing gas is to kill the animals instead of changing what they eat. when people have too much gas we dont kill them, we just tell them to lay off the beans and take some tums.... maybe the problem is that you are assuming too much. the first thought that pops into your head may not be the best or only solution.
a herd of cattle would be the same as a gathering of buffalo... except buffalo dont gather in as large a number as cattle in farm.
and the solutions are not less animals. currently they are looking at changing the animals diet so they produce less gas.
simple solution right? why did you think eliminating them was the ONLY possible solution?
How does that cause global warming?
It produces radiation.
How is it radioactive material. Explain it to me
The disagreement between us is what causes global warming. You believe it to be green house gases, I believe radioactive material to be the cause of global warming and view mainstream scientist's advocacy of radioactive technology and contempt for natural agriculture to be an indicator that said scientists are the problem and source for the publicity of Global Warming so that they can project it on something else to detract from their toxicity such as using hadron colliders to change the atmosphere by colliding particles at an ever increasing speed now past the speed of light, innovating electronics that depend on a higher concentration of radiation, creating viruses, making harmful chemicals and putting it in medication and food to be consumed by the public.
One thing is certain, that is farmed beef is more eco friendly than genetically modified beef. Consequently, if mainstream scientists who perpetuate Global Warming advocate for less farmed cattle and more genetically modified beef that they have created in laboratories, then those who perpetuate Global Warming do not intend to make the world more eco friendly.
You're missing the point I can't help you. You're purposefully ignoring my explanations
Cows do not require a depletion of trees. Have you seen a cow farm? They roam freely among the grasslands that are covered in trees, thus trees do not have to be removed to farm cattle. Methane gas is not radioactive, so the fact that cows produce more of it does not solve Global Warming. How much methane gas does elephant dung produce? Do you realize how many massive herbivores lived during the ice age - mastodons, mammoths, wooly rhinos, bigger buffaloes, covering the ground with their feces? Many more herbivores alive during the ice age than today, and it did not cause Global Warming. Eliminating cattle is just a malicious way of deflecting from the real problem that is radioactive material that the same scientists find news ways of littering the world with their toxicity.
The problem is radioactivity. The amount of radiation being produced is in essence, Global Warming. Cow farms? Farms are completely natural. Growing natural produce is if anything eco friendly, and where else do you think food that is not genetically modified comes from if not from farms. Rainforests are not being cleared out to make farms. Trees are not being removed to make farms which use trees. Deforestation happens because of industry for cities, highways, factories, power plants, AKA more radioactive material being produced. The assertion that cow farms are causing global warming is stupid. Cows are animals, they roam the grasslands, consume grass, and dispense of grass. It has no affect on the concentration of radiation that has plagued the world into a state of global warming.
You clearly don't understand the science and I can't explain an entire class worth if information to you. It's not cattle that's the problem. it is cattle farming. We have increased the amount of cow farms to the point where there are so many that they actually contribute to the air. Cows have a FCR of about 8 compared to chickens or pigs with about a 5 or 3. So you don't need less animals just different ones. Also again deforestation occurs mostly for more cow farms. This increases the number of cows and therefore methane added to the air. It also gets rid of rainforests which take carbon dioxide out of the air. You should do more research because I think you're not understanding the problems
That is such bullshit projection. Cows being farmed in mass is in no way different than a herd of buffalo gathering in mass. Every organism poops. That shit goes somewhere, and it's all natural. Cows eat grass and dispense of grass. That is not causing the sun to project a higher concentration of photonic rays onto Earth. Global Warming is no doubt based on a real issue, sure, but that is not caused by cattle. How is methane gas more radioactive than gamma radiation?
So the solution is less animals? That seems like bogus, especially since it's humans that have caused Global Warming according to scientists. Many more herbivores have roamed the world during the ice age than now and how does methane gas interact with photonic rays from the sun? According to the mainstream hypothesis of Global Warming, since there have been humans, the progression of Global Warming in millions of years now has the same rate of increase in just decades, now in this last century, global warming is increasing more than ever. There is also an increase in production of radioactive material. There are Hadron Colliders breaking down particles at the speed of light only to gain intensity thanks to scientists, higher networks with more radioactive towers for internet connection, electronic devices, more computerized systems with AI, ...etc. If radioactive technology is advocated by scientists to such a degree and the blame for global warming is placed on agriculture, then that assumes that the solution for Global Warming is not making the world more eco friendly, thus those who perpetuate Global Warming do not intend to make the world more eco friendly.
Also Buffalo and those other animals you named aren't farmed on a large scale like cattle. Deforestation in South America is mostly for more cattle agriculture. So ya cattle are part of the problem
Cattle are one of the main causes of global warming though? They release insane amounts of methane gas into the air which is a green house gas. Also many things contribute to climate change and so different scientists will suggest different solutions all which would help. You can't just solve a problem so large one way.
Are the scientists that perpetuate a global warming dealing with the problem? They seem to pin the blame on agriculture rather than advocate for less production of radioactive material. The idea that cattle waste is causing global warming is ridiculous. Should buffalos, mountain goats, wildebeests be eliminated? Meanwhile scientists do advocate for more technology such as computerized systems operated by AI. That is not eco friendly at all. Scientists have innovated genetically modified food, produced various types of viruses, produced harmful chemicals laced in drugs that are to be used on patients with those diseases; so when they perpetuate a global warming and blame it on the natural world, it does not suggest that those who perpetuate Global Warming intend to make the world more eco friendly.
you do understand that recognizing a problem comes BEFORE dealing with it?
how do you deal with a problem before you recognize it? that is senseless
The same goes if you perpetuate an event such as Global Warming and do nothing to improve the situation. How are countries making civilization more eco friendly? All the world governments are doing is making their civilizations more toxic.
if you see a tornado heading your way and you just sit there... your an idiot. I dont understand your example.
global warming will have devastating effects and if we dont deal with it now, it will be too late later. also just about every nation besides the US is doing something. I corrected that before I dont know why you keep repeating wrong statements. if our leaders are refusing to deal with it, we should elect new leaders who will.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
Let's not pretend that it's the same as a natural disaster that has immediate effects since Global Warming will not affect you or your distant relatives, but to your point: You are sitting on your front porch and you see a tornado headed your way down the road, you acknowledge that the tornado exists, but act as if it doesn't exist by staying on the front porch. What's the point? Countries are not doing nearly enough to make civilization more eco friendly, at least not in the US. It's pretty much mandatory that vehicles use an engine that runs on gas and oil and cars that get too much mileage are banned. The push for highly radioactive technology worldwide is hyperactive. If the goal is to stop global warming, then technology needs to emit less radioactive waves.
"What good is it to acknowledge that Global Warming exists if there is no attempt to stop it?"
I'm confused. so if there was a meteor heading for earth, and nothing was being done to stop it, then the logical move is to deny the meteor exists? acknowledging reality as reality needs no other reason.
first off, almost every country is doing alot to change their ways. and second off, acknowledging the reality needs to come before people start to take action. no one will take action on something they havent acknowledged. your statement is completely ridiculous!
harmful chemicals are bad, but right now that's like being worried about a spider when facing down a pride of hungry lions
Jake those are countries doing that. It's big corporations that make billions off of practices that destroy the planet.
What good is it to acknowledge that Global Warming exists if there is no attempt to stop it? World governments fund mainstream science that has perpetuated the theory of Global Warming. Despite this, there is no international initiative to find eco friendly fuels and make alternative energy sources. Countries still use oil and discourage the invention of alternative energy sources. Chemicals are continually spread over the ecosystem by airplane, genetically modified food is widely produced, the water system is contaminated with harmful chemicals, natural remedies and herbs are banned, harmfully radioactive technology is innovated and used, ...etc. If this is an attempt to make the world more eco friendly, then it's doing the exact opposite.
Jradin if you don't stop climate change the entire globe. The. Entire. World. Will be harmed. Immensely. Sorry if while trying to prevent the destruction of the entire planet if some countries are harmed. I want as little people harmed.
Yes, attack industry. Actually by attacking industry you harm poorer countries.
We have Al Gore? I'm sorry. One person now defines an entire movement? It's not even a movement really. It's a global issue that's being dealt with in different ways. Also Nemiroff is right one man vs entire industries pumping the atmosphere with carbon emissions? I'd choose to attack the industry.
I'm not sure how often al gore uses private jets has to do with whether the earth is actually warming.
1 man changing his habits will have almost no impact. flying to conferences to change the opinions or policies of millions can actually change the planet.
Yeah, you have AL Gore telling everyone to quit using fossil fuels to prevent global warming yet he goes around in a private jet and drives around in sububans. I think he uses at least one refrigerator.
how are they hypocritical? are you saying the earth isnt warming?
Global warming is caused by green house gasses
Funny how the main proponents of global warming are hypocritical.
the sun has had stable output for countless years. flares are short bursts that have no long term effect. changes in climate are entirely earth based.
Global Warming is a fact now, but anything could change in the future. I remember reading about Global Cooling in the 1960s.
But the sun has to do more with the warming or cooling of the earth than man.
global warming is fact, as brynn said. people who say that are not required to try to make anything eco friendly. they are just speaking the truth. acknowledging facts does not necessitate any intention.
Also global warming is a fact. So I don't know what you mean by perpetuated.
Hi I perpetuate the truth and want to make global warming more eco friendly.