azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Well there is no art i can perform that will mitigate your disapproval, its simply meant to convey the tentative nature of my disagreement.Disagreement, sir, should ne'er be tentative. One should dispute another only in the full confidence that one is correct oneself.So you don't beleive rising CO2 levels have anything to do with it okI believe that a correlation is not a causation.To think that this will have no effect is naive.To suggest that it hath the principle or sovereign effect, to the exclusion of all other forcing agents, is equally naive and portentious of far greater consequences should we have err'd in our appraisal. Well the considering the strong correlation between exists between CO2 concentration in the atmopshere, and global mean temperature, i would say yes.To my recollection, I appended a yes to the obviously rhetorical question. However it was my understanding that recent data had shown the sun's influence in these matters to be most drastic.Again i understand your secpticism but there is scientific concensus on this, or as close to one as has ever been attained.The notion of scientific consensus is itself quite ludicrous. One can find dissent even regarding Sir Isaac's lustrous laws of motion; decrees considered by me to be almost unequalled in certainty and efficacy. As for anthropogenic global warming, the consensus is a bare-faced lie. Wave as many lists of signatures as you wish.No he was slacker so we had to replace him with all the interactions.Incidentally, it hath occurred to me of late that Jesus Christ, who preached much sense, was probably atheistic himself, and merely dress'd his sermons in the guise of religious proselytisation as was the norm at the time that the credulous masses should put stock in what he said. Qu'est-ce que pensez-vous? You claim to know what is an isn't enough to melt ice caps, where exactly did you get your degree in climatology?A degree in the commonly fraudulent school of climatology is not required. The temperature of fusion for the compound H2O (my apologies, CreateDebate doth not recognize subscripts) is roughly 2 Celsius degrees.Really, so you think it more responsible to comtinue with business as usual and just see what happens?As a cultural adventure in empiricism, yes.and is also credited with discovering the problem of CFCs in the atmosphere,Did'st know that the same man as invented Chlorofluorocarbons also invented leaded petrol? What a disastrous career!
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

"If you disagree, I presume that you have some reason to do so"Yes i do disagree, and i disagree because i beleive in the reality of Athropogenic warming."If you cannot attest to that, why on Earth have you even contacted me? "I can and have attested to it but like any scientist i cannot say anything with 100% certainty, i acknowledge Global warming may not be a reality, but i consider the chances of this to be negligible based on the available evidence."What I do know is that a statistical correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels has been observed or purported and a causality inferred. This is, to my mind, either irresponsible or fraudulent."Well im sorry to tell you that the entire worlds scientific community have considered this, a consensus could never have been achieved if the theory relied on correlation implying causality. "That is mere facile nonsense."Facile, this is anything but facile sir, i must say you are incredibly short sighted on this matter.I do not know what kind of megalomania you suffer from but i seems to me that anyone that label's the established scientific concensus as 'nosense' is either omnipotent, or else suffering from a severe phychopathological condition."I do not measure scientific truth by the number of papers written in favour of one theory."Nor I, but i do look at the available evidence."That is not what it denotes, but it is exactly what it implies"It implies that the dissenting vioces can live with the judgement, i acknowledge this criteria has not been universally met, but i feel the number of dissenting scientists is not large enough to reduce sufficiently the accuracy of its meaning, and thereby make its use invalid."I find it difficult être d'accord with a philosophy that assumes an axiom to disprove or cast doubt upon the very notion of any postulation being true."It does not disprove it, it simply states that pure objective knowledge doe not exist."Pantheism is mere equivocation.Either one believes in a God in the context that the religious actually use it, or one does not."It isn't really that simple."To consider the universe itself to be God is poetic nonsense."Funny how you would consider something to be nonsense on the basis of it being poetic. I can assure that my beleifs do not conflict with your own."Actually, what is your opinion on the existence of an essential, ultimate or elemental particle of the universe?"I am reluctant to speculate, but i feel intuitively (i acknowledge may be very very wrong) that the universe will play an unending game of hide and seek with those who seek to uncover its mysteries.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

Since you appear to using this site as a means to quell the boredom again i was hoping you could respond to the debate, that is of course you've lost interest in it.It seems to me that your scepticism is predicated on unwillingness to accept something that reiles on correlation implying causation, but you should know that once a pattern has been established in science the burden of proof rests with those who beleive it doe not hold.The facts are following:(1.)Large increases (relative to natural equilibrium) in a gas known to trap heat have tajken place due to human activity(2.)The global mean temperature has risen significantly in the same time that said activities have been talking place.(3.)The established correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature is very very strongThese facts (among others) are enough to convince the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community that correlation = causationSo why are they not enough for you?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

The facts are following:(1.)Large increases (relative to natural equilibrium) in a gas known to trap heat have tajken place due to human activity(2.)The global mean temperature has risen significantly in the same time that said activities have been talking place.(3.)The established correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature is very very strongAs I have already stated, sir, and in no ambiguous terms, is that I have seen relatively convincing arguments from either side, and that appeal to majority, or authority does not in any way affect me. I have therefore decided to solve the problem empirically and observe for myself if any of the effects predicted will come to pass.The one thing we have not done, for obvious reasons, is assay whether a decrease in worldwide emissions of man made CO2 creates a corresponding change in the world climate. That, if demonstrated two or three times, would persuade me to look more favourably on the hypothesis. I understand that this must seem like an unrealistic demand, but it is the experiment I consider to be most appropriate.The scale is too grand to operate on a hypothesis.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

"at, if demonstrated two or three times, would persuade me to look more favourably on the hypothesis. I understand that this must seem like an unrealistic demand, but it is the experiment I consider to be most appropriate."I suppose this is the main point of contention, and the fact that i am clearly more convinced by evidence, and that fact that the scientific community have reached an unprecedented consensus. If you really think the kind of change required is an unrealistic demand then there isn't much point in continuing this debate as the availble evidence will probably never be enough to satisfy you.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

I suppose this is the main point of contention...I also await more data on the correlation between solar activity and climate fluctuation. It is my opinion that our understanding of the extent of their relationship is insufficient to form any definite conclusion.Of course, it is prudent to make feasible attempts to reduce CO2 emissions in consideration of the available data, but this Kyoto agreement (representing the principle political reaction) is unjust and inoperable. To impose economic sanctions at such a time and based on such virgin science is both irresponsible and foolish.Science is not urgent. It is not rash and emotional. It is at its best a cautious, tentative and flexible being.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

"To impose economic sanctions at such a time and based on such virgin science is both irresponsible and foolish."Well i guess time will tell whether that opinion is what is really irresponsible and foolish."Science is not urgent. It is not rash and emotional. It is at its best a cautious, tentative and flexible being."I wouldn't characterise the reaction as rash and emotional, there has been a measrued response which in my opinion falls way below what's required.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

yes its really effecting world,wild life,humans, forests and many more
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Well, let's see, we recently found out that scientific data pertaining to the Earth's supposed warming was faked. Obviously there's more to the whole theory than is first apparent. Let's look at who has gained from this theory. The Government, with their carbon taxes. The owner of the carbon credits scheme (note scheme) Al Gore (note Al Gore). Scientists who receive funding for researching this theory. That is all that comes to mind off hand, but note that all of the people who gain from legislation pertaining to Global Warming are the chief advocates of the Global Warming Theory. This in itself would suggest that the whole thing is rather dodgy, but we must now consider the science of the theory.1. The hole in the ozone layer.A hole in gas? That is physically impossible, and any one of the so called 'scientists' who form this 'overwhelming' consensus should know that.2. The melting Ice caps.Meteorologist Jeffrey Masters says: '...most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected to increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC." There you go.3. Reducing 'carbon footprint'.Well, this is completely unnecessary, as the easier and cheaper solution would be to simply plant more trees. Mor carbon dioxide means more plants, more plants means less carbon dioxide. Self-solving problem it would seem.So, before you believe comments on evidence that you yourself have neither actually seen, and by extension, never verified, take the time to think about the theory and make an imformed decision. I, for example have never actually heard of this scientific consensus, except from people with no real argument, who just want to appear intelligent. As I have said countless times, stating that one side of an argument is wrong or right does not make it wrong or right. It just makes you look like a fanatical fool. Anyone remember that whole year 2000 apocalypse thing? Doomsday preachers have always been wrong. When one theory is irrefutably proven to be wrong, they just make another.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

At EnigmaticMan:Looks like you're a major victim of "Did not do the research." You watched your local news who coddled your denial instead of actually READING the emails.Your further rely on pride "I'll discount what the expert scientists say and reason myself that we can just plant trees" and don't look at the weather data yourself, but rely upon people to interpret that for you.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

Well, let's see, we recently found out that scientific data pertaining to the Earth's supposed warming was faked.No "we" didn't. What data was faked? Let's look at who has gained from this theoryWho gains from a theory is irrelevant to its veracity. You might as well be arguing that aeronautical engineers, pilots, the transportation and tourist industries, and cities with airports benefit from the theory of gravity, and therefore it should be considered dodgy and suspect. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that Electrical theory is wrong because we have an entire army of lobbyists fighting on behalf of the energy industry, would you? Of course not. Who cares who benefits from this? You make it seem like these researchers are stuffing their pockets with money. Researchers are among the lowest paid workers in the developed world.A hole in gas? That is physically impossible, and any one of the so called 'scientists' who form this 'overwhelming' consensus should know that.Tthere are places on the planet where the concentration of the volume and mass of the protective layer is lower, thereby permitting higher concentrations of solar radiation to bombard the planet's surface. That's all "hole" means. It's not to be taken too literally. Although the lack of O3 in areas would constitute a hole in the layer. Either way that is a bad thing.That said, whether our current explanatory model is correct or not, we would still have to account for why the ozone layer is weaker in locations around the planet (like Australia, where weakening ozone and higher solar radiative forces are causing increasing incidents of skin cancer). Facts and observations don't go away just because a theory is wrong. We are still seeing increasing mean surface temperatures.So, before you believe comments on evidence that you yourself have neither actually seen, and by extension, never verified, take the time to think about the theory and make an informed decision.Are you holding yourself to the same standard?I, for example have never actually heard of this scientific consensus, except from people with no real argument, who just want to appear intelligent.Ignorance isn't a refutation of the fact.Anyone remember that whole year 2000 apocalypse thing?Yeah, I remember this. And I remember that there was almost literally no one in the appropriate fields who were being alarmist. It was the News-media and frightened laymen. In this case, we have people in relevant fields of study across multiple scientific disciplines informing us that we are trending towards some bad times if things continue the way they are. And the scientists certainly aren't being alarmist. A simple read of most, if not all academic articles would alert you to this very fact. They are, however, being very serious and stern with respect to the risk we are taking by doing nothing.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

A well structured argument, however:No "we" didn't. What data was faked? Recently, emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK - which claims to be the repository for the most comprehensive set of climate data on the planet - contain what many observers see as clear evidence that scientists have been altering that data to fit in with their man-made global warming beliefs.Who gains from a theory is irrelevant to its veracity.I was pointing out that the main advocates of the Global Warming theory are those who stand the most to gain from funding, taxes etc.All the industries you mentioned make money from voluntary customers, however G.W legislation means that people receive no tangible gain from money they are forced to pay.there are places on the planet where the concentration of the volume....Though I was indeed too literal in my interpretation, that in itself highlights how pro G.W scientists use wordplay to scare the populace. And, as you pointed out, we still cannot verify the theory that this is related to Man-Made pollutants.Are you holding yourself to the same standard?The fact that I am arguing against the common opinion would suggest that I my theories are my own.Ignorance isn't a refutation of the fact.Then please enlighten me as to how controversy can exist along with consensus.almost literally no one in the appropriate fields who were being alarmist.My point was that people aren't happy without a doomsday theory of some kind, regardless of who advocates it.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

Recently, emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK - which claims to be the repository for the most comprehensive set of climate data on the planet - contain what many observers see as clear evidence that scientists have been altering that data to fit in with their man-made global warming beliefs.Oh, the overblown, out of context and hacked emails that skeptics and the media refer to as "climategate".I was pointing out that the main advocates of the Global Warming theory are those who stand the most to gain from funding, taxes etc.The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain as any other scientists who do research in any scientific discipline. And a "theory" in science is the highest level of certainty available in science. So, emboldening the word "theory" as if that somehow diminishes its standing is unnecessary. And ultimately, so what? This has no impact on whether the theory accurately accounts for our observations.All the industries you mentioned make money from voluntary customers, however G.W legislation means that people receive no tangible gain from money they are forced to pay.That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources, which we use to survive are a tangible benefit of not perpetuating energy imbalance with anthropogenic forcing.Though I was indeed too literal in my interpretation, that in itself highlights how pro G.W scientists use wordplay to scare the populaceNo it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.And, as you pointed out, we still cannot verify the theory that this is related to Man-Made pollutantsI never pointed this out. We have a very good understanding of how radiative agents work and impact the planet's climate.The fact that I am arguing against the common opinion would suggest that I my theories are my own.Why don't you argue against the science?Then please enlighten me as to how controversy can exist along with consensus.Because the consensus refers to the scientific community's unity, especially those in the relevant fields. The "controversy" exists almost singularly in groups of people who don't know the science, aren't practicing scientists, don't have any education in science, can't debate the science on science's terms, and only have recourse to debate the political ramifications and whoo-whoo about three or four emails out of thousands over two decades as indicative of some grand fraud, because they are suspicious of words like "trick", which are ever-present in scientific literature. But they don't know the latter because they don't (and possibly can't) read scientific literature and depend almost entirely on the News-media and blogs to do the science for them.My point was that people aren't happy without a doomsday theory of some kind, regardless of who advocates it.Point taken. But again, this is irrelevant to whether a theory accurately explains our observations. Anthropogenic forcing exists; it creates and perpetuates energy imbalance which the planet might otherwise be able to self-correct.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

'Oh, the overblown, out of context and hacked emails'Oh yes, scientists accused of adjusting data refute that claim and say the emails were hacked. Therefore they must be telling the truth. Please.The main advocates of global warming are the scientists. They stand as much to gain...Now you're being obtuse, Al Gore, for example owns the carbon credits company, so if people believe his film, then he will make more money. I am pointing out that everyone who expounds on the G.W theory stands to gain financially from people believing them. That's myopic. Hospitable environments and resources...I am working from the position that G.W is a lie or a mistake, so I obviously don't believe in such benefits.No it doesn't. It only highlights you being too literal.Well what would you think of when you hear the word 'hole'?I never pointed this out. We have a very good understanding of how radiative agents work and impact the planet's climate.'That said, whether our current explanatory model is correct or not, we would still have to account for why the ozone layer is weaker in locations around the planet' Looks like you did.Why don't you argue against the science?Well as, according to you, the common opinion is the science, it would seem that I am.Because the consensus refers to the scientific community's unityMore than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.)But again, this is irrelevant to whether a theory accurately explains our observations. That is not my point. My point is that this is just another scientific scare that will come to nothing, just like the Bird and Swine Flu 'Pandemics'.