Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Dec '09 06:05
    This thread was going to be my difinitive proof that we have to tackle global warming.
    My debate was going to be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree the ice caps are melting?
    - Do you agree that certain islands are sinking?

    Basically, there is photographic evidence of both, so they can't really be denied.

    The second part of the argument would be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree that CO2 is not good for the temperature of the Earth?

    It is proven that the more CO2 there is in the air, the less radiation can escape the Earth's atmosphere and the warmer the planet gets (about 7% of global warming would be due to CO2).

    The third part of the argument would be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree then that by reducing CO2 (whether global warming is man-made or not), we will influence the temperatue of the planet. So we could man-made keep the planet's temperature in check?

    HOWEVER!
    In my quest for objective data I stumbled upon this:

    Climate change is of a concern in Tuvalu since at its highest, Tuvalu is only 4.5 m above sea level, and could be one of the first nations to experience the effects of sea level rise.

    Where I live in the Netherlands... is 4m below sea level!!!

    WHO THE HELL ARE THESE TUVALUIANS (which sounds like a bloody Star Trek race of baddies to me) TO COMPLAIN TO ME???

    And to add to this, I've actually lived in the lowest part of the planet... the dead sea (although, compared to the Gangis near Varanasi... I'd probably rather drink the dead sea water).

    Tuvaluians are whining, good for nothing, whingers. And to paraphrase the four Yorkshiremen from Monty Python: "4.5m above sea level... LUXURY!"
  2. 11 Dec '09 06:15
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    This thread was going to be my difinitive proof that we have to tackle global warming.
    My debate was going to be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree the ice caps are melting?
    - Do you agree that certain islands are sinking?

    Basically, there is photographic evidence of both, so they can't really be denied.

    The second part of the argument would be ...[text shortened]... to paraphrase the four Yorkshiremen from Monty Python: "4.5m above sea level... LUXURY!"
    LOL, this one is great, cracked me up. Sympathy hogs!
  3. 11 Dec '09 06:30
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    This thread was going to be my difinitive proof that we have to tackle global warming.
    My debate was going to be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree the ice caps are melting?
    - Do you agree that certain islands are sinking?

    Basically, there is photographic evidence of both, so they can't really be denied.

    The second part of the argument would be ...[text shortened]... to paraphrase the four Yorkshiremen from Monty Python: "4.5m above sea level... LUXURY!"
    is the sea level higher in nederlands?
  4. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    11 Dec '09 06:44
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    is the sea level higher in nederlands?
    Its apparently 1 credule* higher









    * the credule is a standardized measurement of water** level measurement

    ** in this context pertains to the level of fluid to be found in the semi-circular*** canals

    *** integral part of the ear from which amongst other things bipedal-hominids**** derive their ability to remain erect.

    **** form of life occasionally encountered on rhp forums
  5. 11 Dec '09 12:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    This thread was going to be my difinitive proof that we have to tackle global warming.
    My debate was going to be along the lines of:

    - Do you agree the ice caps are melting?
    - Do you agree that certain islands are sinking?

    Basically, there is photographic evidence of both, so they can't really be denied.

    The second part of the argument would be to paraphrase the four Yorkshiremen from Monty Python: "4.5m above sea level... LUXURY!"
    I would be more sympathetic to chicken littles cause if it were not for the solutions being offered. Jus tax them into oblivion in the hopes they use less CO2. What a bunch of dopes. If they spent half the time finding alternatives to fossil fuels as they do holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence the problem might be solved by now. We want solutions not punished. However, they are not interested in solutions, they just want our money. Just try telling that to Americans that now find themselves out of work and are facing foreclosure come election time. Is 2010 here yet?

    Of course, part of the problem is that the solutions are what the powers that be disdain. That includes more nuclear power, carbon free, and natty gas, which is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and in abundance in the US. Personally, I think that the powers that be are and will continue to be in the pockets of oil companies so good luck with that!!
  6. 11 Dec '09 14:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    I would be more sympathetic to chicken littles cause if it were not for the solutions being offered. Jus tax them into oblivion in the hopes they use less CO2. What a bunch of dopes. If they spent half the time finding alternatives to fossil fuels as they do holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence the proble ...[text shortened]... ers that be are and will continue to be in the pockets of oil companies so good luck with that!!
    "...holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence..."

    Thats what is ALL About right there.

    ( when I was a kid we were heading for an ice age ! Its all a farce)
  7. 11 Dec '09 16:39
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_Netherlands

    This is a chronological list of floods that have occurred in the Netherlands, until 1500 most parts of the Netherlands were in Frisia.

    * 838 December 26: A large part of the northwest of the Netherlands (in that time the land belonged to Frisia - now called Friesland) was flooded by a storm. Lack of good dikes was an important cause of this flood disaster. Bishop Prudentius of Troyes describes this flood; he said there were 2437 victims. This flood is also described in the Annales Xantenses.
    * 1014 September 28: for the first time the partially closed coast line of the Netherlands was breached. Walcheren suffered a particularly large amount of damage. It took years before people managed to get their lives back on track. The chronicle of the Quedlinburg abbey in Saxony reports that thousands of people died.
    * 1042 November 2: flood mentioned in Annales Blandiniensis (Ghent), probably only affecting the Flemish coast and in particular the region of the Yser mouth.

    ...

    * 1717 December 24/25 night: Christmas flood (Kerstvloed): see Christmas flood 1717.
    * 1820 January 23: This flood inundated large parts of the Alblasserwaard, after a number of dike breaches. Also the lock between the Linge and the canal from Steenenhoek to Gorinchem succumbed on 26 January during the events of this calamity. An area of approximately 1300 km² came under water during this calamity.
    * 1825 February 3 to 5: The provinces of Groningen, Friesland and Overijssel were flooded through serious dike breaks, as a result of which more than 800 people lost their lives. At 17 February 1825 the government set up a relief commission to provide government assistance for the flood disaster. Accounts of this commission are kept in the national archives in Den Haag. In memory of this flood, the book Gedenkboek van Neerlands watersnood in februari 1825 ("Memorial Book of the Dutch Flood Disaster of February 1825" was published.
    * 1836: Two hurricane-driven floods by the Haarlemmermeer lake: One in November reached the gates of Amsterdam. One on Christmas Day flooded Leyden. As a result, in May 1840 men started to drain and reclaim the Haarlemmermeer.
    * 1916 January 13 and 14: Flood disaster around the Zuiderzee. At dozens of places the dikes broke. Afterwards work started on the Zuiderzeewerken and the establishment of the storm flood service.
    * 1953 January 31/February 1 night: See North Sea flood of 1953.

    [edit]
  8. 11 Dec '09 18:34 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    "...holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence..."

    Thats what is ALL About right there.

    ( when I was a kid we were heading for an ice age ! Its all a farce)
    I see that cap and trade has done a world of good for Europe. Just look at all the new inovations for other energy sources it has created. LOL.

    Even assuming that cap and trade will reduce CO2 emissions that are destroying the planet, all those CO2 producing industries will simply go to China and the third world with even fewer jobs in the US. As for China and the rest, they could care less about political correctness and the UN and EU. The whole endevour is a house of cards.

    Then again, if the EU flatters China's leader with a nobel peace prize maybe he will come around.
  9. 11 Dec '09 23:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I would be more sympathetic to chicken littles cause if it were not for the solutions being offered. Jus tax them into oblivion in the hopes they use less CO2. What a bunch of dopes. If they spent half the time finding alternatives to fossil fuels as they do holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence the proble ...[text shortened]... ers that be are and will continue to be in the pockets of oil companies so good luck with that!!
    You want people to spend more time looking for actual alternatives for fossil fuels. But as long as fossil fuels are cheap, why would anyone really bother? Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
  10. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    11 Dec '09 23:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    I would be more sympathetic to chicken littles cause if it were not for the solutions being offered. Jus tax them into oblivion in the hopes they use less CO2. What a bunch of dopes. If they spent half the time finding alternatives to fossil fuels as they do holding meetings trying to get the US and CHina to tax their economies into nonexistence the proble ...[text shortened]... ers that be are and will continue to be in the pockets of oil companies so good luck with that!!
    If you don't think taxation affects behavior, then why do you insist that carbon taxes will hurt the economy?
  11. 12 Dec '09 00:35
    You tax what you want to diminish and you subsidize what you want to increase. That's just the way things work. There's no getting around it, it is human nature.

    You tax business and the number of businesses diminsih. You subsidize the unemployed and you get more unemployed. This is why there needs to be balance.

    Until you can get the entire world working on the same playing field when it comes to taxation, business will just move to places where doing business makes more sense.

    In the US you can see this at work if you'd bother to drive through El Paso and see all the black smoke pouring over the border. It was quite eye opening when I'd drive that way when I was in college.
  12. 12 Dec '09 03:05
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    You want people to spend more time looking for actual alternatives for fossil fuels. But as long as fossil fuels are cheap, why would anyone really bother? Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
    So what has this necessity over in Europe done for invention?
  13. 12 Dec '09 03:07
    Originally posted by telerion
    If you don't think taxation affects behavior, then why do you insist that carbon taxes will hurt the economy?
    I have an even better question. Why not take the money and invest in this country by building nuclear reactors? We already have the invention, now we just need some leaders with some gonades to see it through.
  14. 12 Dec '09 03:09
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You tax what you want to diminish and you subsidize what you want to increase. That's just the way things work. There's no getting around it, it is human nature.

    You tax business and the number of businesses diminsih. You subsidize the unemployed and you get more unemployed. This is why there needs to be balance.

    Until you can get the entire world w ...[text shortened]... ng over the border. It was quite eye opening when I'd drive that way when I was in college.
    You got that right. The CO2 emissions will continue unabated, it will just be in other countries.
  15. Standard member telerion
    True X X Xian
    12 Dec '09 06:05
    Originally posted by whodey
    I have an even better question. Why not take the money and invest in this country by building nuclear reactors? We already have the invention, now we just need some leaders with some gonades to see it through.
    That may be a good idea, but nuclear reactors and carbon taxes aren't mutually exclusive options.

    Even with nuclear energy, to the extent that the marginal social cost of an individual using carbon emitting fuels still exceeds the individual's private marginal cost, there would continue to be an argument for a carbon tax (or alternatively a cap and trade program).