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 Standard Rules for Team Debates apply, 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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2438139&postcount=35)

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).

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).

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?

To points of clarification, James:

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

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).

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.

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.
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.

Then that's his prerogative - and the root of his debate. If he can prove it, he's right. If he can't, he's wrong.

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.

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:

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 ?


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.

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


?

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's fine, Trippy. I don't think Buffalo Roam will be willing to debate this topic for real anyway.

Again James R, I have been debating the topic.

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.

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.

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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76020), Here, in the Formal Debates subforum, moderated by a third party (SuperString has offered).

Yes?
Or
No?

Alright - I can start the debate today.

Moderator note: An off-topic post from Buffalo Roam has been removed. Buffalo Roam is advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates forum. In particular, he is reminded - AGAIN - that Proposal threads are for negotiating the participants and terms of a proposed debate. They are NOT for debating the topic.

Looks like James R has chickened out, this thread should be locked.

CheskiChips:

Read back. I gave Buffalo Roam time to think about it - until the end of Friday. If he's not in by then, we move on.

I assume you want to argue the negative side. Do you want anybody to join your team, seeing as Buffalo Roam is too scared?

Ok. Time's up for Buffalo Roam. I knew he'd chicken out of this debate. All mouth, no substance.

So, who's still up for the debate?

Please confirm if you wish to participate, and on which side.

I could do it for a mental challenge, but String pissed me off in the other thread so I won't do it, and as you know unless I do a formal debate than it usually doesn't take place. :)

By the way because of the uniqueness of the situation it is pretty much impossible to move the human origin of GW, otherwise everybody would have accepted it by now...

P.S.: You were incredibly naive when you thought that you can get a Republican wingnut to have a serious debate on a scientific matter.

James R, locked and ready.

Ok. So at this point we have:

Affirmative team: James R
Negative team: CheskiChips

Anybody else?

---

By the way, I want to add one more condition to this debate: I would like all debaters to agree that Buffalo Roam is NOT allowed to post in the Discussion thread for the debate.

I do not want him trying to participate without actually participating. He has opted out of this debate, so I want him right out of it.

Before you start, ask DH, he might be in the Negative. If he is - then trippy can be added to the Affirmative.

CheskiChips:

Why don't you ask whoever you think might want to join your team?

By the way, I want to add one more condition to this debate: I would like all debaters to agree that Buffalo Roam is NOT allowed to post in the Discussion thread for the debate.

Discrimination on the square. :)


I do not want him trying to participate without actually participating.

That would be actually pretty smooth of him.

According to SciRules everybody can participate in the Discussion thread, last time I checked.

Anyway, good luck...

According to SciRules everybody can participate in the Discussion thread, last time I checked.

I will not agree to this debate without this condition in place.

Buffalo Roam had his chance. I don't want him throwing peanuts from the sidelines, pretending he has some integrity.

This is dragging out, so I'm going to put a time limit on this.

Anybody who wants to join in this debate, please post in this thread in the next 24 hours from the time of this post. At the end of that period, I will start the debate.

Cheski:

Do you agree to the rules I proposed in post #1? I suggest that post lengths be limited to 2000 words each, including any quotes, to keep the debate concise. Do you agree?

Do you also agree to the condition regarding Buffalo Roam?

I will not agree to this debate without this condition in place.

That is your problem. Forumers can not vote on extra discrimination and I am willing to formally debate you on this one. :)

So just get it on with ChCh already!

Syzygys:

Do you wish to join the debate on anthropogenic global warming? Yes or no?

If not, then you don't get a say in what the debaters agree to.

YOU don't get a say who can post in the Discussion thread, which is open for every member... :)

Well, first I kind of lost interest, but then thinking about it, I want to be a good sport, so hell, let's do it...

But can you be concise, because I usually lose the line of thought after 3 sentences??

Syzygys:


YOU don't get a say who can post in the Discussion thread, which is open for every member...

If I don't get a say, this debate does not go ahead. Like I said. I have placed a condition on debating this topic following the wimping out of Buffalo Roam.

Do you wish to participate in this debate or not? It is a Formal Debate. If you are not serious about it, don't bother.

Do you agree to the rules I proposed in post #1? I suggest that post lengths be limited to 2000 words each, including any quotes, to keep the debate concise. Do you agree?

Do you also agree to the condition regarding Buffalo Roam?

I don't want Syzygys arguing on my side. End the prelims go forth with the debate.

I have placed a condition on debating this topic following the wimping out of Buffalo Roam.

What I don't get, how are you gonna achieve this? Since the Discussion happens AFTER the Debate, you already debated by the time he starts to post. Are you gonna DELETE all his posts from the Discussion thread? THAT is against Rules...

By the way, I want a lollipop for the debate. No lollipop, no debate and that is my final offer!


Do you wish to participate in this debate or not? It is a Formal Debate.

I guess I have to because unless I participate no formal debate takes off. Check the records....


Do you agree to....Do you agree?

Do you also agree to

Yes, yes and yes! Stop torturing me! Now can we get it on? OH yes there is ChCH.

He has me on the block or whatever (I think he means Ignore) but that shouldn't bother anyone. ChCH, hon, you don't have a say who you are teamed up with, just like in a party, we are together in this! :)

Okay if Syzygys is on my 'team' then I'm out. They're dead weight - prepare to have a debate with someone who doesn't know anything about Climate.

Hey, new idea! I am really trying to be a good sport here, so why don't we have 2 debates? ChCh can have his and since my arguments would be based on completely different reasoning, I can have mine.
My debate title could be: It can not be proven just how much humans contributed to GW. My argument is that if the average temperature increased 1C in the last 100 years, there is no way of telling how much of it is natural and how much of it is human made. Maybe .3C is human made, maybe .7C is. In the later we could say GW is manmade, but if the former, it is natural....

Syzygys:


What I don't get, how are you gonna achieve this? Since the Discussion happens AFTER the Debate...

Read the rules of the Formal Debates forum. You are incorrect.


Are you gonna DELETE all his posts from the Discussion thread? THAT is against Rules...

No. It is agreed among the debaters for this debate.


By the way, I want a lollipop for the debate. No lollipop, no debate and that is my final offer!

Since you are not serious about this, you are out of this debate.



CheskiChips:

I will start the debate as soon as I have time - hopefully the next hour or so. My opening post will take a little time to write.

I assume you agree to all the conditions and rules I suggested.

Take all the time you need - I put the standard discussed rules in for simple protocol. Any extension is automatically granted by me unasked.

CheskiChips:

Sorry. I didn't get to starting the debate yesterday. As I said, I'll get to it as soon as I have enough time.

A couple of points on the rules, however:


The discussion thread is open to all non-debate participants (including BuffaloRoam).

I clearly specified in several posts to the current thread that a condition of me engaging in this debate is that Buffalo Roam will NOT be allowed to post in the Discussion thread. I asked you on several occasions whether you agreed to this condition, but got not reply from you.

If you do not agree to this condition, I am out of this debate. Please let me know. I will not post my first post until I hear from you. In the meantime, I have temporarily closed the Debate thread.

One other thing:


The nature of this climate change, its causes and its predictable future are the intended discussion of this debate.

It is agreed, I take it, that the Earth is warming. You aren't going to argue that it is cooling, are you? Because that was another condition I initially put on this debate.

Other than that, I accept your rules.

CheskiChips:

Sorry. I didn't get to starting the debate yesterday. As I said, I'll get to it as soon as I have enough time.

A couple of points on the rules, however:



I clearly specified in several posts to the current thread that a condition of me engaging in this debate is that Buffalo Roam will NOT be allowed to post in the Discussion thread. I asked you on several occasions whether you agreed to this condition, but got not reply from you.

If you do not agree to this condition, I am out of this debate. Please let me know. I will not post my first post until I hear from you. In the meantime, I have temporarily closed the Debate thread.

I concede - amend the rule.



One other thing:



It is agreed, I take it, that the Earth is warming. You aren't going to argue that it is cooling, are you? Because that was another condition I initially put on this debate.

Other than that, I accept your rules.
My use of the term 'Climate Change' was to be in agreement with the standard terminology used by climatologists. The term 'global warming' is typically used by media - the difference is it's technically not called 'global warming' because, as the IPCC reports show, different parts of the globe will incur different impacts and in some cases that includes cooling. The term global warming is accurate if the change occurred and all oceanic / long term atmospheric processes stayed identical. I have no intention of arguing global dimming. You can change it, it was just my preference to use scientifically correct terms.

Ok, Cheski. I'm fine with that.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that I'll get to posting my first post today. It's coming up to dinner time now where I am.

Sorry for the delay.

Cheski:

Christmas has caught up with me. I won't be able to start until the day after tomorrow at the earliest. Sorry once again.

Take all the time you want, I'm equally busy - message me when you've entered a post. Or it could be called off, which is also fine.

Hey, I was looking forward to this thingy, I might have learnt something. I guess since I don't participate, it will never take off....

I've been kept busy with schenanigans regarding SAM's temporary ban, plus real life commitments. This debate will take some time and thought and effort on my part, but I will get to it.

CURRENT global warming? We're in the middle of a freezing period. And it's not our fault you know, climate change.