azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...Yes. Dipole moment can refer to several things. Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric dipole moments. You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments. Those are properties of electric dipole moments. This indicates that you were talking about electric dipole moments and not transition dipole moments. Are you actually claiming that IR band absorption depends on electric dipole moments rather than state gaps (transition dipole moments)?Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.If you had a clear understanding, then you would have noticed your citation as inadequate and corrected it. Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.Now that I have pointed out your error, you claim that you knew it all along. This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...Thanks for clearing things up though...If you were right all along and actually understood this topic, then explain how permanent/temporary electric dipole moments relates to the transition dipole moments. There is a relationship and the hint would be how light interacts with the net distribution of charges.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge...Yes. Dipole moment can refer to several things. Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments. You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments. Those are properties of electric dipole moments. This indicates that you were talking about electric dipole moments and not transition dipole moments (which are state properties). Are you actually claiming that IR band absorption depends on electric dipole moments rather than state gaps (transition dipole moments)?Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant.It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.If you had a clear understanding, then you would have noticed your citation as inadequate and corrected it. Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.Now that I have pointed out your error, you claim that you knew it all along. This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...Thanks for clearing things up though...If you were right all along and actually understood this topic, then explain how permanent/temporary electric dipole moments relates to the transition dipole moments. There is a relationship and the hint would be how light interacts with the net distribution of charges.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Through your comments, it was obvious you were referring to electric/molecular dipole moments.Apparently you still don't know what your talking about.My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."You brought up the difference between temporary and permanent dipole moments.YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!It does not make the source unreliable, it just implies that you do not understand the overall picture.Having one source out of many (which one and what it excludes you haven't actually established) not specify every possible thing (an impossibility) does not reflect a lack of understanding whatsoever.Instead, you just paste whatever you can find with google and hope for the best.I pasted references after your ineptitude demanded it - they all concurred with my description. Maybe you should try to find a source for how they are all wrong...Now that I have pointed out your errorYou have yet to point out any error - only your own ignorance.This claim would be substantiated if you had actually mentioned the degenerative modes before or within the original comment.Explaining to you that the bending modes of CO2 are degenerate was not necessary to substantiate my statement - and was mentioned in the references I posted in my second response to you.If you were right all along and actually understood this topicAgain, here is my original comment: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."It was, and still is, correct - regardless of your ignorance. Claiming to "clear up the science" on greenhouse gases, you tangented into Raman spectrum and permanent dipole moments, etc. - while providing nothing that was actually relevant.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

My comment that you responded to: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."YOU brought up the permanent dipole moment, dummy; I said your reference to the permanent dipole moment of CO2 was irrelevant - IT IS!!First mention of permanent dipoles was by you. Not only that, a dipole moment in general refers to the net charge distribution which is the electric dipole moment.You: CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching. (There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical.) This is what I was saying in my post with: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy"You first mention of the dipole moment was here: (through a shift in its dipole moment)Transition dipole moments don't shift. It is a process, not a state. Electric dipole moments do shift as it is a state, not a process. It is obvious you weren't referring to transition dipole moments.It was, and still is, correctExplain how a transition dipole moment shifts when it refers to the process of state transitions.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

If you seriously think that taking issue with the lay use of the word "shift" resolves your dilemma, you are mistaken as you would have just clarified that it was a transition. You would not have responded by saying "CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0" and "The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra."
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Cough. Cough.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Al Gore predicted that all of the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013See here and here
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

There are tons of sources - re
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

-31,000 scientists signed a petition saying that global warming is not caused by humans.No, the petition says that humans will not cause catastrophic heating, not that we are not causing heating.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Also, about half are either "BS or equivalent academic degrees", Medical Doctors, or Veterinarians.Many of the rest are in fields like: Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, Metallurgy, Astronomy, Math, etc.refAnd, I'll note that many of these types of lists include people who graduate from Bob Jones, Liberty University, etc. though this site doesn't list the degree issuers.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 yearsThe trend involved is actually the Global Mean "Surface" Temperature - which specifically excludes the known increase in sub-surface ocean temperatures. Are you trying to be misleading, or, have you been misled by someone else?Additionally, the GMST data was initially calculated using estimates for artic temperatures based on only 4 data sites, more complete satellite data shows those estimates were far below the actual artic warming over the relevant period. So, not only has GMST increased, it does not include other known warming.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

why isn't water vapor something to worry about?Water vapor forms clouds, and clouds with high albedo can have some negative feedback effect. CO2 can stay up in the atmosphere for centuries, but for water vapor it is typically a few days.Water vapor also doesn't cause forcing the same way.ref
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

If I'm fully understand what you're trying to get across, wouldn't it make more sense that the clouds with "high albedo" would reflect the heat and UV rays back into space and not even hit the surface of the earth?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

wouldn't it make more sense that the clouds with "high albedo" would reflect the heat and UV rays back into space and not even hit the surface of the earthWell, it would make sense, but it wouldn't make more sense, because that is exactly what I am saying. That is what a negative feedback effect is.Also note, you took the first of my 3 facts - that water can sometimes have a cooling effect and just unwittingly reiterated it - while ignoring the rest of my post:"CO2 can stay up in the atmosphere for centuries, but for water vapor it is typically a few days.Water vapor also doesn't cause forcing the same way.ref"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas but functions differently than CO2, methane, etc.Also, there is little you are going to do to prevent water evaporation - because, well, oceans...
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

it is still only 0.03% of the atmosphere. THAT, by the way, is a fact.A) It is actually .04% - refB) so what, saying that something is small is not to say that it isn't dangerous - e.g. a little bit of nuclear material, would you like .04% of your body to be AIDS?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Okay... There's .04%. Either way, it doesn't make a difference. And you're comparing carbon dioxide to AIDS; not the best comparison. Carbon dioxide doesn't maintain enough heat (close to none at all) and there is a fraction of a percent of it. It's harmless. And even if the carbon dioxide levels are increasing, there's a record amount of trees on the planet. So if anything, the carbon dioxide is a blessing.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

And even if the carbon dioxide levels are increasing, there's a record amount of trees on the planet. So if anything, the carbon dioxide is a blessingWhy do you keep repeating things that people have already refuted?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

you're comparing carbon dioxide to AIDS; not the best comparisonIf not the best, still effective. Small doesn't mean innocuous. Think of the difference just a few degrees makes when you have a fever - add a few degrees more, death.Carbon dioxide doesn't maintain enough heatYou keep referring to specific heat, but this is not a relevant argument regarding global warming. All gasses have a specific heat, some higher and some lower than CO2, that doesn't make them greenhouse gasses.there's a record amount of trees on the planetYou must not have read up to the post where I disputed this yet.No, there isn't.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

The use of a percentage to make CO2 seem insignificant is an old trick, smoke and mirrors. It really matters what it does in the amount discussed. Take asprin for instance. Only a few parts per million can change a much larger systems interactions. Or how about alcohol and how little it takes to inebriate a person.The use of a percentage also hides how much of something there is as it compares the number relative to other things. For example the percentage of oxygen at sea level is near the same as it is on Mount Everest but breathing on Everest is difficult because of how little O2 is there.I know there are a few videos running around that shows what the increase in CO2 looks like via ppm in a fish tank too. If I can find that I will link it for the visual learners.But this link will have to suffice for now, it explains how we measure CO2s trapping of heat.https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

When clouds form, they reflect heat back into space. This is Earth's way of cooling itself down. So we could not heat up the Earth if we tried.To say that some things are reflective, is not sufficient to support that there is enough reflection to prevent warming.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

This is not a sufficient rebuttal. You didn't prove to me anything other than you have an opinion that my statement wasn't good enough. Believe them or not, facts are facts.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

If the earth is warming by X and that warming creates clouds, and those clouds prevent .2X, then the planet still warms by .8X - do you not understand that? To substantiate your statement that "we could not heat up the Earth if we tried", you would have to show that the cloud reflection (or even the sum of all negative feedbacks) would be equal to or greater than X. Would you like to try?Note: Light clouds reflect back to space, but dark clouds do the opposite...
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Those who claim that Earth is a giant greenhouse are also wrong. Earth is by no means a greenhouse.Here is a good project for you - try to describe how a greenhouse gas works.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

I understand how a greenhouse gas works. However, there are some people who think that the earth is a giant greenhouse. I can't make this stuff up. But there are also people who believe scientists that say carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas simply because of the fact that they're called a scientist. Try to make me look like an idiot all you want; it's not going to work.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Then it will be very easy for you to "describe how a greenhouse gas works" then, right?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

As for the polar bear population, it has more than doubled in the past thirty years.A) no evidence for that - refB) to say that nature is not killing polar bears as fast as humans did before we imposed hunting regulations is not to say warming and habitat loss isn't happeningC) in some areas seals are going further north than before because of warmer water and are providing a food source for that area's bear population, and that areas numbers will likely rise. Though, that is evidence that warming IS happening, not that it isn't.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Oh yeah? No evidence? According to the Fish and WildlifeService, they've more than doubled. Need more? A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations "may now be near historic highs." If you want to go ahead and deny that, then this is a lost cause. As for the seals, I'm curious to know if you have any evidence pertaining to that.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

According to the Fish and WildlifeTheir claim is that it more than doubled in the last 50 years not 30, and use the same unsupported starting point 5,000 to 6,000 - can you provide a source for that initial number? (because they don't/can't either)The truth is, we don't even have really good worldwide polar bear population numbers now, much less decades ago.I'm curious to know if you have any evidence pertaining to that.Sure - refDo you need a source that not hunting them helps their numbers, too?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.You are describing melting sea ice, not ice that is on land.Try this experiment:Get a bowl (not the one you've been smoking, a normal bowl),Fill about half of the bowl up to the brim (or higher even, doesn't matter) with dirt - this simulates land, preferably it should be roughly flat or slightly inclined downwardly toward the water,Fill the rest of the bowl up to the brim with water - (the sea)Now, put ice on top of the exposed land.What happens when the ice melts??
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Okay so let's take what you're saying to be true (which it isn't) for argument's sake. If the sea level is rising, where's the evidence? It seems like the whole world is waiting for a flood that's never gonna happen. There were many predictions that multiple major cities would be completely under water by now, so what happened to that? This whole global warming thing is based on computer models that are wrong, no actual science (well actually, just bad science).
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

refrefrefrefrefrefAlso, if you get HBO, you can use HBO Go to see Season 3 Episode 1 of VICE - not only does it show some of how the measurements are taken, some of the people behind selling the doubt (former tobacco company marketers - imagine), but it also shows places where the rise in sea level is very evident already. In Bangladesh, the land close to the water is fairly flat, so rises in sea level have a marked difference, and people who live next to the water have to repeatedly move their village as the water moves inland.The amount of evidence available is only limited by your willingness/ability to look.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

look into Climategate. It is a scandal literally showing that scientists have lied about global warming.A) No, it isn't - refB) If one scientist lies (or all for that matter), that doesn't disprove global warming
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

If that whole scandal just shows them in a bad light and they have nothing to hide, then maybe you can explain to me why they violated the freedom-of-information act and were reluctant to give any information that was requested.As for the scientist thing, it just proves that you can't trust every scientist's generalized opinion, especially with matters such as this one.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

maybe you can explain to me why they violated the freedom-of-information act and were reluctant to give any information that was requested.Because much of the data wasn't their own - they get their data from mostly government sources and some governments required that the data only be used for academic purposes and not given to third parties.it just proves that you can't trust every scientist's generalized opinionThere are certainly less than perfect people on both sides - you should weigh the evidence and decide for yourself. (Or, for those unwilling to invest the necessary time, refrain from making an opinion.)
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

The cost and benefits of global warming will vary greatly from area to area. For moderate climate change, the balance can be difficult to assess. But the larger the change in climate, the more negative the consequences will become. Global warming will probably make life harder, not easier, for most people. This is mainly because we have already built enormous infrastructure based on the climate we now have.People in some temperate zones may benefit from milder winters, more abundant rainfall, and expanding crop production zones. But people in other areas will suffer from increased heat waves, coastal erosion, rising sea level, more erratic rainfall, and droughts.The crops, natural vegetation, and domesticated and wild animals (including seafood) that sustain people in a given area may be unable to adapt to local or regional changes in climate. The ranges of diseases and insect pests that are limited by temperature may expand, if other environmental conditions are also favorable.The problems seem especially obvious in cases where current societal trends appear to be on a “collision course” with predictions of global warming’s impacts:at the same time that sea levels are rising, human population continues to grow most rapidly in flood-vulnerable, low-lying coastal zones;places where famine and food insecurity are greatest in today’s world are not places where milder winters will boost crop or vegetation productivity, but instead, are places where rainfall will probably become less reliable, and crop productivity is expected to fall;the countries most vulnerable to global warming’s most serious side effects are among the poorest and least able to pay for the medical and social services and technological solutions that will be needed to adapt to climate change.In its summary report on the impacts of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated, “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.”
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

yes it causes a threat to society polar ice caps are melting and sea levels rise hot places are becoming worse
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Not if you're freezing your ass off.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I'm sorry Hellno, but if thats your response, you need to be reading more reaserch other than the Heritage Foundation and The Drudge Report
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

I may not have been entirely serious. What do you think?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Lol, I can never tell with you. While there is a notable debate as to the extent of the problem, I'm tired of hearing the old "but then why do we still have cold weather?" Argument
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Climate change has always been an issue. The problem is, most of the people arguing about it do not understand it. This includes both sides.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

You may have posted under the wrong side.You are saying it "has always been an issue" while posting under "No" to "Is global warming an issue?"
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I am saying the recent "Global Warming" debate is not as important as the actual climate change that we have pondered for the last century.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Not sure what you mean there. What do you consider the distinctions between the two?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I am saying we should focus on the entire field like some climatologists are actually doing. The fear mongering puts all the focus on radiation forcing even though CO2 affects the climate and the ecosystem in so many other ways, most of which we understand little.Big picture vs little picture.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?