Proposal: That global warming is currently occurring

James R

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
I hereby challenge anybody who wishes to argue the question to a Formal Debate on the topic:

"That global warming is currently occurring."

In particular, I challenge Buffalo Roam to debate the topic.

I will argue the affirmative side of the debate. I challenge anybody to argue the negative.

If other people are interested, we could have a "teams" debate. At this stage, propose that the Standard Rules apply to any debate (whether individual or team), as set out in the sticky thread in the Formal Debates forum. I am willing to negotiate on those rules, of course.

This thread, as usual, is for negotiation of the terms of the debate and who the participants will be. It is not for discussion of the actual topic. I advise anybody who is unfamiliar with the Formal Debates subforum to read the sticky threads at the top of the forum before posting.
 
I accept the challenge - but there's some clarification that needs to be made.

Will proof that current models don't predict global warming suffice as a evidence? It's difficult to prove something isn't happening if it isn't.

What are we going to define as "Global Warming" - what time scale? Is it simple warming, anthropogenic warming, does the cause matter...etc. etc.
 
CheskiChips:

You can make whatever argument you like, as far as I am concerned.

I am talking about current Global Warming. In particular, warming since the industrial revolution. More particularly, global warming in the 20th century. More particularly, global warming since 1976. More particularly, global warming since 1990 or so.

At this point, I do not propose to debate whether warming is anthropogenic or not. I want to have the basic argument out of the way with the out-and-out deniers that global warming is even happening at all. We can get to the causes in a different debate, perhaps.
 
I can argue this side, however, I won't be able until around the 15th. So, if you want to wait until then - that is, if no one competent presents themselves.
 
I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.
 
If we get more than one person to argue the negative case here, does anybody want to join me on the affirmative side?
 
James R said:
I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.
Click to expand...

JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.
 
James R said:
If we get more than one person to argue the negative case here, does anybody want to join me on the affirmative side?
Click to expand...

I might be able to be convinced to argue the positive side - I've done enough formal debating in my time.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming...
Click to expand...
Not the debate JamesR is proposing to conduct at this time.

Buffalo Roam said:
the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.
Click to expand...
Here's an idea, why don't you save these questions for the actual debate, if you think that they're that important.
 
JamesR:
We might have to extend the deadline for responses (or renegotiate some aspects of the 'official' time frames, if we're to do this properly).
 
Buffalo Roam:

Buffalo Roam said:
JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.
Click to expand...

This proposal is not about whether warming is caused by humans, as I said above. It is about the basic fact of global warming, as explained above.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, perhaps you can suggest a related topic you'd like to debate instead.


Trippy:

Trippy said:
I might be able to be convinced to argue the positive side - I've done enough formal debating in my time.
Click to expand...

If there is more than one person to debate the negative, it would be great if you could join me on the affirmative side.

Trippy said:
We might have to extend the deadline for responses (or renegotiate some aspects of the 'official' time frames, if we're to do this properly).
Click to expand...

Fine. I'm open to suggestions.
 
Buffalo Roam said:
JamesR, prove that man is the cause of global warming, the earth has warmed and cooled at various time since Man walked the face of the earth.

Explain the Holocene epoch which we are now in, and the glacial and interglacial period, and the warming and cooling that was needed to impliment those events?

All of those events took place before man could ever have been a factor.

Explain the Holocene Climate Optimum, or the Little Ice Age, or why any of this today would represents a permanent end to the current Quaternary glaciation.
Click to expand...

The cause is not in the least bit relevant Buffalo Roam. How we react to the change is very relevant. It is like being confronted with immenent flooding, are you going to go to high ground or are you going to spend your remaining time casting blame for the flood.
 
joepistole said:
The cause is not in the least bit relevant Buffalo Roam. How we react to the change is very relevant. It is like being confronted with immenent flooding, are you going to go to high ground or are you going to spend your remaining time casting blame for the flood.
Click to expand...

The cause is not in the least bit relevant​

The cause is not in the least bit relevant​



Do you realize just how fatuous that statement is, if you do not know the cause?
 
James R said:
Buffalo Roam:

This proposal is not about whether warming is caused by humans, as I said above. It is about the basic fact of global warming, as explained above.

Do you accept my challenge? If not, perhaps you can suggest a related topic you'd like to debate instead.


Trippy:

If there is more than one person to debate the negative, it would be great if you could join me on the affirmative side.

Fine. I'm open to suggestions.
Click to expand...

JamesR, if there was no global warming, we wouldn't be here, and your are the one who has been hammered me about my questioning that Man is the cause of Global Warming, which was the point of my thread;

This decade the Warmest on Record????? ( 1 2)
Buffalo Roam
Click to expand...

Your the one who called me out;

James R I'm happy to wait. I assume Buffalo Roam will wimp out of this challenge. We'll see.
Click to expand...

And if I had challengened some one in such a manner, I would be sitting out a ban for flaming.
 
Buffalo Roam said:

Do you realize just how fatuous that statement is, if you do not know the cause?​
Click to expand...


The only thing fatuous about that statement is in your mind. You clearly do not understand the issue. I suggest you stick to the subject and answer James's call to debate.

I think a debate would be good for you. But you are going to have to stick to the issues at hand and not regress, and not use illogical arguements or false facts. James is offering you a great opportunity to learn.​
 
Last edited:
I propose the format:

Defender (against warming) makes opening statement that doesn't argue points.
Accuser (for warming) makes opening statement followed by first argument.
Defender
Accuser
.... n times
Accusers final conclusive argument.
Defenders final conclusive argument.

I also suggest that at the top of the thread is a post which is altered as the thread goes on, and it is the "Submitted evidence" that is referenced in the further posts.

For example:
Submitted Evidence:
Evidence for 1st Defense (Post #3):
Link or information - Citation
Link or information - Citation
Evidence for 2nd Defense (Post #5):
Link or information - Citation
Link or information - Citation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top