Global Warming Debate - Introduction, part 1 of 10

[straightfacedfsu]

Look up global warming on NASA's website. The only scientists who are disagreeing with man made global warming work for oil companies you retards. The lack of understanding with respect to how science is done is absolutely appalling. I would bet the same people who don't "believe" in evidence for man made global warming share the same two charactersitics: 1. They don't believe in Darwinian evolution 2. They watch FOX news channel.

[shadowplayerDC]

@therealarchangel

"6.Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop (51 KB) [49], allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. [9] "

- procon.org

[shadowplayerDC]

@therealarchangel

"Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio (6.5 MB) [48] that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3] - procon.org

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

save yourself some time and skip to the introduction of the debaters by fast forwarding to 3:10

[muetter]

I used to work with Brenda Ekwurzel at Union of Concerned Scientists! She's awesome

[MrTanequil]

Would it not be a good idea to stop talking about " the cause" of global warming as though there's only one of them? Surely just because one thing has been proven to have an affect on the climate doesn't rule out any of the others? And in terms of arrogance, how is it more arrogant to attempt to rectify the changes we know we are making than to assume we are making none and remedial action is pointless?

[59arkady]

I have a question for anyone who might know - where did the carbon that's being pumped into the atmosphere originally come from?

[LiouTao]

@59arkady from the organisms that died and buried miles underground for millions of years.

[59arkady]

@LiouTao Right, but; where does the original carbon come from, the raw material compiled into those organisms?

[LiouTao]

@59arkady Depends on what you mean by that. All organisms are 'made' up of Carbon, it's the chemical composition of organism. The 'original' carbon didn't 'come' from anywhere, it just existed on Earth and the first single cell organisms formed their basis on Carbon and evolved from there. Carbon is an element, you can't 'make' carbon without a nuclear reaction. There's as much carbon now as there were a billion years ago.

[WaxItYourself]

@LiouTao Unfortunately a lot of the carbon has been taken out of what we know as the carbon cycle and sunk into the ground as, what we know, as oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. To state that "Well there is still the same amount of carbon" is to completely ignore the carbon cycle, the rise in atmospheric CO2 as measured by Scripps, and to completely ignore the effects that CO2 has in the atmosphere. You are bringing a philosophy argument to a science discussion.

[LiouTao]

@WaxItYourself This is not philosophical, the Earth as we know it is a closed system. Carbon is an element, you can't 'change' it to something else short of a nuclear reaction. The 'carbon cycle' as we know it has only been in play for the past 65 million years. 65 million years ago the atmosphere had a much higher CO2 level than it is now. Hell 1 billion years ago the atmosphere was CO2 based, if we were to breath the air on earth 1 billion years ago we'd die from CO2 poisoning.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"The 'carbon cycle' as we know it has only been in play for the past 65 million years"

No, the Earth is a Carbon based system...alyays...it's crust,it's mantle,and even it's outer core

"65 million years ago the atmosphere had a much higher CO2 level than it is now'

It started off Nitrogen/methane,like titan then came up to 24% oxygen with methane almost nill

Greenhouase gas theory is bullshit

Heat isn't "stored in air" it disapates through it with the heat constantly rising from surface

[LiouTao]

@TheRealArchAngel Earth is a carbon based system, what I was saying is that the Carbon Cycle as it is now was not present millions of years ago. Go back to the time of dinosaurs, the Carbon in the atmosphere at the time was at a much higher level, 1 billion years ago it was dominated by CO2. My point was that the atmosphere is always changing.  I advocate for environmental regulations and laws, I just dun buy the Global Warming theory.

[LiouTao]

@TheRealArchAngel Earth is a carbon based system, what I was saying is that the Carbon Cycle as it is now was not present millions of years ago. Go back to the time of dinosaurs, the Carbon in the atmosphere at the time was at a much higher level, 1 billion years ago it was dominated by CO2. My point was that the atmosphere is always changing. I advocate for environmental regulations and laws, I just dun buy the Global Warming theory.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Go back to the time of dinosaurs, the Carbon in the atmosphere at the time was at a much higher level,"

CO2 is a heavier then air gas and is only in the air via riding the Evaporation/percipitation cycle

Only reason thre be more of it riding the evaporation/percipitation cycle is there is more co2 comoing out of it's sinks...the Ocean holds thousands of trillions of tons, the Earth itself trillions of trillion of tons

"1 billion years ago it was dominated by CO2"

300,000 parts per million?

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Go back to the time of dinosaurs, the Carbon in the atmosphere at the time was at a much higher level,"

CO2 is a heavier then air gas and is only in the air via riding the Evaporation/percipitation cycle

Only reason thre be more of it riding the evaporation/percipitation cycle is there is more co2 comoing out of it's sinks...the Ocean holds thousands of trillions of tons, the Earth itself trillions of trillion of tons

1 billion years ago it was dominated by CO2"

300,000 parts per million?

[LiouTao]

@TheRealArchAngel err... Imma leave you alone and let you have the playing field...

[TheRealArchAngel]

'point was that the atmosphere is always changing."

No, co2 is a trace gas that rides the evaproation/percipitation cycle, the Evaporation/percipitation cycle being the real heat exchange mechanisim between the surface and air regardless of how much co2 is comming along for the ride

Co2 is heat sensitive and more of it leaks out of the world's co2 sinks the warmer the area with those sinks get(Deep sea,permafrost,ice,soil) allowing it to going the evaporation cycle currently at 300ppm-390ppm

[TheRealArchAngel]

" I advocate for environmental regulations and laws"

What more is there for the EPA to regulate concerning power plants,factories and cars since the 70's?

Environuts are pretending like it is the 1950's where black smoke is still coming out of cars with no emmision controls,filters,or oxidation supression mixed into the gas and Power plants are still spueing black smoke and raining ash for miles with no water filtration,chemical filtration,paper filtration,electrostatic filtration(rollseyes)

[TheRealArchAngel]

" I just dun buy the Global Warming theory. "

No it's debunked 18th century physics chemical theory nonsense that is not even testable in the field or in the lab

They measure air and surface tempature vs CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" and think they are seeing the theory in action but what they are actually observing is the Thermalhayline cycle(Ocean heat distribution)and evaporation/percitation cycle(surface to air heat distribution)..that just happens to have trace co2 and such in it

[LiouTao]

@WaxItYourself As for effects of CO2 on atmosphere, look at the avg temperature of the United States from 1940s to 1970s, you'll see that the avg temperature during those 30 years DROPPED, yet during those 30 years the US Industrial Output was at its highest; that was why they were crying GLOBAL COOLING in the 1970s, not global WARMING. The point is we didn't know jack about how the atmosphere worked then, and we still don't know how it works now.

[WaxItYourself]

@LiouTao @LiouTao The Earth is not a closed system. The carbon cycle has been in play ever since plants began breathing carbon. The cooling experienced during the period you mention is attributable to an increase in atmospheric aerosols combined with a negative PDO. We can tell it was due to aerosols because the Sun's output was increasing while, the highest number of Sunspot being in the 60s, while temperatures decreased and ground based solar radiation was declining.

[LiouTao]

@WaxItYourself Earth is a closed bloody closed system. Carbon exists in many forms, not just CO2. There's just as much carbon on earth now as there has always been, only difference is that before they started pumping oil the Carbon was down there, not up here. All living things are made of Carbon. Carbon cycle as we know it now is much different as it was 1 billion years ago when the atmosphere was predominantly CO2. Earth is a closed system, ask any scientist and they'll tell you the same thing

[LiouTao]

@WaxItYourself As for Global Cooling, Aerosol level today is much higher than it was back then. 50-60 years ago the skies were clear, today you can barely see the stars.

Sunspots have a 12 year cycles, yet it was a 30 year period where the temperatures continued to drop, and since then a straight 40 year rise. These temperature trends shows little to no relationship with the sunspot cycles.

[WaxItYourself]

@LiouTao Umm... no. The Earth is not a closed system. It is a steady state system. As you increase the amount of energy in the system the steady state changes, Carbon may exist in many forms, however to become a greenhouse gas it must combined with other molecules to form a molecule with an electric dipole or an uneven distribution of electric charges. Of course it also must be in the atmosphere as a gas. Check 'Wild, 2009: Global dimming and brightening" to rebut your claim about aerosols.

[WaxItYourself]

@LiouTao Also. the reason why you can 'barely see the stars' is more likely due to light pollution than anything else. You are attempting to take the same theory as Lindzen. We are just coming out of the deepest solar minimum in a century yet 9 of the warmest years on record occurred in the last decade. You are wrong.

[balkan2k]

@59arkady Carbon isn't the problem, CarbonDioxide is (a part of...). It's not like there is just a finite amount of CarbonDioxide, it is a compound that is *made* primarily through combustion processes, both in animals, in cars and whatnot.

[TheRealArchAngel]

"CarbonDioxide is (a part of...). It's not like there is just a finite amount of CarbonDioxide, it is a compound that is *made* primarily through combustion processes"

SO all the Carbon dioxide on Mars, on Venus ,on comets and meteors were made by combustion?..lol

Carbon dioxide is the the most common form of free Carbon in the Universe

On earth there is currently 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 in the air, 500 billion tons supposedly humans fault

There is thousands of trilllions of tons in Ocean

[TheRealArchAngel]

And while there is 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 in 5000 trillion tons of air and thusands of trillions of tons of co2 in 300 million trillion tons of ocean water there is million of trillions of Co2 in the Earth itself

"both in animals, in cars and whatnot."

Combustion doesn't make co2...the catalyst converter that existsed in cars pre-1994 took carbon monoxide coming out of the engine and chemically forced another Oxygen on it to make CO2

CO2 cannot "spontaniously oxidize" from combustion

[TheRealArchAngel]

" where did the carbon that's being pumped into the atmosphere originally come from?

The Earth core is going through a "plumbing" cycle where it is pumping out more heat with it's activity as well as churning fasts

This causes more earthquakes as the plate tectonics are "accelerated" it causes subducion volvcanoes like Icelands to awaken,and it causes more heat at the release points like the sea floor where bulk of surface co2 sinks are

Ocean co2 about 790ppm,air co2 between 300ppm-390ppm

[TheRealArchAngel]

"Ocean co2 about 790ppm,air co2 between 300ppm-390ppm"

Note,that that is all relative to current tempature of the ocean being about 2 degrees hotter because of the pluming cycle, bohth of them average, and both of them relative to local tempature as co2 is heat sensitive

For example there be more co2 riding with the heat in evaporation at the equator at summer then at the poles where almost no heat induced evaporation happens

With no wind or evaporation, co2 sinks",its a constant cycle

[ladomiroff]

c c c c c c c c c c c

[ladomiroff]

ccc

[ladomiroff]

ccc

[ReduceGHGs]

Funny that they bring on michael crichton, a si fi writer. Well, it's sort of fitting. His opinion is science fiction.

A debate like this is silly. It lends credibility to the naysayers even though they have no studies and not ONE historically reliable scientific institution to back them up, not ONE. They may as well have brought on glen beck.

[derocco91]

Lindzen is a corporate hack

[pigeatinginfidel]

@derocco91

What kind of hack are you? Because everyone's a hack for something.

[quuaa1]

You're a retard

[HollyHimeko]

You would think with everything we have today, like the internet, people would be just a little smarter than they used to.

Al Gore...It's been proven the guy lies,

even if Al Gores version of global warming were to be true, I'd rather live in an age where I wasn't living in a hole without modern day technology, humans like everything else are supposed to evolve, not go backwards.

Technology doesn't start out perfect, it's up to us to advance it, and we're doing it as fast as we can.

[soupdragon42]

Al Gore invented the internet, remember! When has he ever lied?

[spoondoggled]

The earth is warming and I think it is arrogant for us to believe that we have anything to do with it. We are sill warming from the last ice age which we also had nothing to do with. Does anyone believe that the earth will stand still just because there is a "civilization" on its surface? The human existence is a flash in the pan in earth's eons. When there is a big enough change we will be reabsorbed with little trace.

[Re5Publica]

It doesn't only take a great amount of hubris to think that we alone cause the climate to change, but that we alone can stop that change.

[CrimsonEmpire]

Why is it arrogant? And there has never in our knowledge been a civilization that is advanced as our own. You think we can't have any kind of significant impact on the planet surface's health? That's ridiculous. Dust bowl? Acid rain killing entire forests in The Czech Republic? Toxic waste runoff into rivers that lead into the ocean and hugely affect the sealife? the Pacific Trash Vortex? You're telling me we don't have any significant affect on our environment?

[spoondoggled]

Put a piece of tissue paper on the outside of a bowling ball. Now do whatever you want to to that tissue paper. The paper has changed but the bowling ball remains the same. That's how much affect we have on this planet.

[markd107]

This is the most irrelevant metaphor I have read. Why use metaphors when you can use actual events like the ones noted by CrimsonEmpire. Add to these the number of species mankind has driven into extinction along with Chernobyl, Union Carbine in Bopal India, Cuyahoga River Fire in Cleveland, and many other instances of human beings effecting the planet in a negative manner, and the intelligent, logical response is that the most intelligent species on the Earth is also the most destructive

[markd107]

dangerous species. We are not tissue paper and the earth is not a bowling ball. If you insist on using metaphors then consider the Earth is fishbowl teeming with many species of fish and humans are toxic waste, dump the toxic waste into the fish bowl and the toxic waste doesn't change, but all the fish will die. Humans can use technology (gas masks, water purifiers, etc) to adapt to the poisons we put into the atmosphere, water and earth, but the Earth is helpless against our onslaught.

[markd107]

In the end humans have a choice, ignore the harm we are causing to our home, or change our habits and take responsibility for cleaning up. The ignorant, callus option is to ignore the impact we have on the Earth and pretend that we are powerless beings who cannot possibly cause global warming. The intelligent option is to recognize the impact we are having and make changes so we can leave a healthy planet to our children.

[soupdragon42]

Warming and cooling trends are relative only to any selected span of time. For example, over the last 2000, or 700, or 10 years the planet has been cooloing slightly overall. Over the last 100 years you could say that it warmed slightly overall, before it began cooling again.

The CO2 in the atmosphere has been far higher in the past without any impact on global temperatures.

To summarise: The climate changes, but tax scams never go away.

[ReduceGHGs]

No kidding there are natural variations in climate. But thanks for the "analysis". I recommend you read what ALL of our respected scientific institutions have been saying for years; HUMANS are warming the planet. There is no credible debate over this core issue amount those that actively study it.

Yes, lindzen IS a corporate hack.

Read what the experts say.

Google... Scientific Opinion on Climate Change Wiki

[coturnix19]

@spoondoggled there had been a noticeable trend of cooling going on for the last 3000 to 5000 years, so we are not still warming from the last glacial, we'd be plunging into the next one right now if it wasn't for global warming.

[davidklausa]

@spoondoggled  That sounds good, but science isn't on your side. The activity of the billions of people on the planet is substantial enough to make a real difference.

[coolbeens21]

@spoondoggled

completely agree with you, everything you said.

[CASTILLOM1]

Has anyone in here heard of the new NASA findings on solar maximum. According to the report, climate change is being caused by the actions of the sun which is burning at maximum surface levels causing Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars to heat. Human action it seems has very little to do with rising temperatures on our planet. I guess "abnormal" solar activity as the cause for our heating trends makes alot of sense..... I wish it didnt.

[rdbiii]

Your wish it didn't? Do you wish the planet wouldn't have heated out of other ice ages as well? It seems to me that global warming is the best thing for life on this planet.

[arsjth]

@CASTILLOM1

What?? the sun affects the temperature of the earth???

What strange new religion is this?

Stone him!!!!

[MauroRincon]

@CASTILLOM1 It doesn't, papers published afterwards have proven it is unlikely solar variability is responsible for lobal warming experienced in the last three decades.

[MauroRincon]

Why was a screenwriter in the panel?. The best scientists i know believe in, at least partial, anthropogenic global warming. Denying is just nuts.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@MauroRincon

Denying it isn't nuts. The fact of the matter is that the science is mixed and it's just not conclusive. I can name 30,000 scientists who say that it's only a possibility -- not a fact. I guess they're all right wing nuts, huh?

[MauroRincon]

@itcanbecheezcaketime Ok, name them, along with their last paper in the area. Even if you could, I can name you 300.000 who support anthropogenic climate change. To which extent and what the consequences are is a different problem, but everyday the skeptics group within the scientific community are steadily dissapearing.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

@MauroRincon

Clearly I can't put 30,000 names here. But you can google search "31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs" and you come up with the correct article.

Not only this, but you can you can watch whether or not this is a crisis in a full-on video debate at

/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY

But the amount of people believing something holds zero value to their claim of truth. Argumentum Ad Populum.

[shadowplayerDC]

@CASTILLOM1 @CASTILLOM1

"Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. [7]" -procon.org

[straightfacedfsu]

@CASTILLOM1 there are massive amounts of data on the NASA website that repeatedly suggest global warming is man made. learn how to read a science journal you moron.

[billsurlatete]

it really annoys me when people are called "conspiracy theorists" because they dont buy the man-made global warming stories. we all know how many wholes there are in the climate change debate. how even at the base of the argument simple things remain unanswered. is everyone really so studid.

[cpsretartedmuch]

who are u? are u white? yes so gtfo.

[Aleister93]

Can you please re-post these and boost the audio volume? I can't hear them.

[ospreylookout]

How many of you folks actually have academic credentials that support your comments for or against climate change? Reading some of these posts, I bet NONE. Try to get the education before you let loose on the conspiracy theory garbage. The science is pretty clear insofar as man has done the damage and caused what likely is unstoppable. Happy? Go drive your gas guzzlers.

[billsurlatete]

you are so stupid. it isn't a conspiracy theory. its a widely held belief that the earth changes its termperature in natural cycles like it has always done. ever heard of the ice age, or the warm middle age, and not that long ago there were vinyards in northern england. i suppose it was all the horses with bad mileage. its actualyl funny how diluded you are by the sneaky government taking your money. do yourself a favour and do some reading.

[alignwithtruth]

CO2 is a good gas. It is to plants, as O2 is to us. And I understand CO2 is a GHG. But so is H2O. H2O has 40 times the GHG effect of CO2.

The temperature has been dropping for the past 8 years, while CO2 has been rising. So where's the correlation? The IPCC models predict temperature rise. So they are WRONG!

[ospreylookout]

Are you retarded? That explanation has to be the most primitive effort to pick up a stone that I have heard in ages. Have you actually EVER taken a single science course past high school? Perhaps get the degree in climate science (and science) before you spew. OMG!!

[alignwithtruth]

So I presume you have a climate degree then. What did I say that was wrong.

[ospreylookout]

align: Creating climate models is so immensely complex that the real probability they are wrong is a very difficult problem to explain to the public. If the model is incorrect, it is fine-tuned, but even though the general trend remains, the folks who stand the most to lose (Big Oil and Coal) have paid lobbyists who spew misleading propaganda. The science is solid and points to a man-made climate shift. At this point, policy still lags, probably too late to do anything about it.

[billsurlatete]

the science is not solid. the ice core records have been shown to be at odds with the man made global warming theory. and because scientific records were not kept in the middleages, are unable to distinguish between natural warming and man-caused warming.

[RomeoMD25]

Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do

with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in

car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

[blackmetalqueer]

Yes, CO2 is necessary for life, but too much of anything is a bad thing. And too much CO2 in the air traps too much heat for the current array of eco-systems.

[nextthought]

Here is the true crisis that is being created; governments are going forward with legislation creating debt. (In other words for you as consumer and taxpayer) ...Question is what are they solving?? Most people are confused between pollution and CO2 and methane emission...The Latter are not pollutants, CO2 is required for plants to survive and there is no proof either creates environmental damage. The Sun warms and cools; Warm period are historically times of economic prosperity.

[GusMagnusO]

Yes, furthermore, the recent warming is EXACTLY in line with climate flow. We are just coming towards the end of one of the 'inter-glacial warm periods'.

[blackmetalqueer]

But we know why climate has historically changed; Milankovitch factors, Volcanic activity, and solar forcing.

Unfortunately, for your position, none of the above could possibly be responsible for the current warming. The Milankovitch factors won't be significant for 50,000 years. The Volcanic activity is no currently sufficient to alter the climate significantly. And the solar output has been dropping since 1975. The only climate forcing that has been heating is human emissions of CO2.

[billsurlatete]

volcanic activity produces more co2 than that of mens activities. fact.

[mikeandamina]

Lets see....Venus is about 99% Carbon dioxide(Atmosphere). It is the HOTTEST planet by a long shot. And Mercury is closer to the sun but not even close to Venus' temperature. So it's obvious that CO2 DOES.

[nextthought]

Your understanging of science is very simple. Yes in math one plus one equals two and sometimes the most simple way of looking at things gets it right.... But this is not the way climate or the weather works it's super complicated. Do you realize that there are third more trees in europe since wwii. That we have more green material on the Earth now than any time in recorded history and not one good model exsists for predicting climate even though we know a lot about the subject.

[matthew1722]

Earth has many factors contributing to the nature of its climate which don't exist on Venus. Earth has an atmosphere with less than .5% CO2, along with a host of other factors which make a comparison with Venus irrelevent. Venus has no vegetation or carbon cycle to absorb any of its atmospheric CO2. While there is no denying the greenhouse effect contributing to the warm temeratures on Venus, there is not nearly enough C02 in Earth's atmoshpere to make the two atmosphere's comparable.

[mikeandamina]

But what is relevant is pound-by-pound, earth has the exact same CO2 levels are Venus(And yet another contribution to the sisters, ironic o.o). Now I only stated the fact about Venus because it's pretty much just proof that CO2 does contribute to global warming in a big way. Now just causes there's small amounts in earth doesn't mean it won't contribute, the net effect still exists with CO2 and the other gases alongside it.

[matthew1722]

The two planets are too dissimilar to make any meaningful comparison between the two. While CO2 definitely has a relationship with temperature, it most certainly does not drive changes in temperature. CO2 levels follow changes in temperature. If the current warming was due to CO2 you would see more warming in the troposphere than closer to the earth's surface, which is the opposite of what is actually occurring. Climate change is a problem created by government so they can offer their solutions.

[adelllerom]

do you happen to know if i can find the transcription of this debate?

[andrewanguslive]

watch: Al Gore is Adolph Hitler.....This video is banned in some countries.

Comment, Rate, Subscribe......in my channel.

[Tbar95]

wow only 25k views. from what i can tell this is the only debate between both sides on the net. its also the only one ive ever seen referenced in other videos as well. thanks for getting it on here. talk about being behind. haha.

[HappyAppleFilms]

For the motion wins, but this is truly a pathetic defense of the Global Warming theory. Many points weren't made or should have been stated more clearly by the "against the motion" side. I'm not an expert like many people here, and I won't give into the "consensus" argument either, but I still feel like the consensus side has a better argument outside of this debate. If anyone here wants to challenge my position, I'd be more than happy to defend it.

[hugopelland]

Both sides have good arguments, but both sides also make BIG mistakes. And here I am talking in general, not just about this movie. When analyzing each side with a microscope, you realize what the mistakes are. After admitting the errors for BOTH sides, I conclude that the majority is closer to reality than the odds. And anyway, whatever side we pick, we all want a better world, so just do it... your way...

[justtex1975]

Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".

[TacticusPrime]

debating is a skill. debates are determined by the skill of the debater, not by the veracity of his claim. a debate is not a useful tool for determining the truth about an issue, it is simply a showcase for the skill of the debaters involved. that's why debate tournaments exist wherein each team is expected to argue both sides of the same argument and be victorious each time.

[rapsaggg]

debating is a skill,and i think they are a

usefull tool for resolving issues.each side

shld get their best people and debate,and then

there shld b no excuses for why one side didnt

win.if one cant defend thier stand on an issue

thats significant.if we dont trust debates to

find truth what shld we trust the dominant

liberal mass media?

[TacticusPrime]

the point of my post is that who wins, except in the rare case where the evidence is overwhelmingly on one side, is not dependent on who is right. it is dependent on who is smarter. and no we shouldn't trust the "liberal media" or any media for that matter. any intelligent person should be searching for opinions across the board, opinions and evidence that are easy to find in this age of the internet.

[nmckeown101]

Good point.

[uflnuceng]

Thanks... its great to hear others who are not giving into the hype of this hypocracy that man has anything to do with global temperatures.

[brokenlenspro]

i bought into the whole 'man-made' global warming scare. what i hear, is that all the planets are getting warmer because the SUN is getting warmer. the global warming scare is designed to get us all to pay the 1st ever global tax

[etherealeyes]

hey man, thanks for uploading this