Hello and welcome to this first round debate of the inaugural New Years Edeb8 Tournament. It is my pleasure to be affirming the resolution, that the International Community should endorse unilateral Climate Engineering projects to prevent Global Warming.
My side will be affirming this resolution.
These gases form a layer which prevents heat from escaping Earth's atmosphere and results in a "Greenhouse" effect, where the temperature on Earth's surface steadily increases over time.
CO2 is not the only one of these Greenhouse gases, but it's one of the ones we're most concerned with, as its increase can be directly attributed to many human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
So if Global Warming is happening, why is it such a big deal?
- Rising Seas--- inundation of fresh water marshlands (the everglades), low-lying cities, and islands with seawater.
- Changes in rainfall patterns --- droughts and fires in some areas, flooding in other areas. See the section above on the recent droughts, for example!
- Increased likelihood of extreme events--- such as flooding, hurricanes, etc.
- Melting of the ice caps --- loss of habitat near the poles. Polar bears are now thought to be greatly endangered by the shortening of their feeding season due to dwindling ice packs.
- Melting glaciers - significant melting of old glaciers is already observed.
- Widespread vanishing of animal populations--- following widespread habitat loss.
- Spread of disease--- migration of diseases such as malaria to new, now warmer, regions.
- Bleaching of Coral Reefs due to warming seas and acidification due to carbonic acid formation--- One third of coral reefs now appear to have been severely damaged by warming seas.
- Loss of Plankton due to warming seas--- The enormous (900 mile long) Aleution island ecosystems of orcas (killer whales), sea lions, sea otters, sea urchins, kelp beds, and fish populations, appears to have collapsed due to loss of plankton, leading to loss of sea lions, leading orcas to eat too many sea otters, leading to urchin explosions, leading to loss of kelp beds and their associated fish populations.
Scientists then introduced the Myxoma Virus in an effort to curb growing Rabbit population. This succeeded in dramatically reducing the population of rabbits, (while having the side effect of making the survivors possibly immune to the disease) so much so that now the feral cats had lost their primary food supply. They went crazy and started targeting all the remaining bird species. It was estimated they were killing 60,000 birds a year. Finally scientists performed a cull of the feral cats on the island. This was finally completed in 2000.
Implementing a potential solution which impacts the entire globe, should not be a decision for one company, or even one country. It should be a decision made by all of us.
Return To Top | Posted:
I'm actually not playing devil's advocate here. I'm actually very Libertarian, but there are plenty of reasons to reject this proposal regardless of what political persuasion you belong to and I'll be appealing to stuff we can all agree with.
CHAOS
Mother nature is a very complicated thing. With so many factors in play we can never know exactly what the results of our actions will be.
"In 1810 Sailors and scientists first landed on Macquarie Island, just south of Australia. Naturally their landing also introduced rats and mice to the island. In 1818, scientists deliberately introduced cats to the island in an effort to reduce the number of rats and mice. This decision proved disastrous - not only for the rats and mice but also for most of the native species on the island. By the time Humans realised their mistake, it was too late. Two native bird species had been wiped out completely.
Scientists then introduced the Myxoma Virus in an effort to curb growing Rabbit population. This succeeded in dramatically reducing the population of rabbits, (while having the side effect of making the survivors possibly immune to the disease) so much so that now the feral cats had lost their primary food supply. They went crazy and started targeting all the remaining bird species. It was estimated they were killing 60,000 birds a year. Finally scientists performed a cull of the feral cats on the island. This was finally completed in 2000.
But that's not all.
Since their primary predators have now been removed, the rabbit population of Macquarie Island has made a massive resurgence. They have now wiped out all vegetation from an estimated 40% of the island, a fact which has even been blamed for a recent landslide which wiped out part of a penguin colony.
There are numerous other such examples throughout our glowing track record of interaction with our environment. We stumble along regardless because such mistakes, while disastrous, are usually fairly localised.
The problem with implementing a solution to the Global Warming effect, is that the solution will affect ALL life on Earth."
The moral of the story here is that we usually fail to consider all possibilities and the results are disasterous. While typically localized my opponent suggests taking these types of risks on a global level. I don't know about you but I think we should proceed with caution.
According to Damon Matthews in a 2009 study
"dditional interventions do not always bring the intended results, and in
many cases there is evidence that net impacts have increased with the
degree of human intervention. In this letter, we report some of the
examples in the scientific literature that have documented such human
interventions in environmental systems, which may serve as analogues to
geoengineering. We argue that a high degree of system understanding is
required for increased intervention to lead to decreased impacts. Given
our current level of understanding of the climate system, it is likely
that the result of at least some geoengineering efforts would follow
previous ecological examples where increased human intervention has led
to an overall increase in negative environmental consequences."
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045105
MORAL HAZARD
Geoengineering basically just deals with the symptoms of the problem and doesn't do much to solve the problem itself. What we need to do is focus on the problem by reducing CO2 emissions. Geoengineering is just going to be used as another political weapon to stall real efforts to improve the environment.
The risks we run is that this will be seen as a solution, while the underlying problem is still there and without action will just get worse. According to a study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JC003706/full
In Iron fertilization the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere will probably be lower than originally thought, as carbon taken up by plankton may go back into the atmosphere from the dead plankton, instead of being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered. (paraphrased from wikipedia article on the subject)
The techniques that take greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, actually do nothing to prevent ocean acidification. http://infohost.nmt.edu/~chem/wingenter/Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007.pdf
The real risk is in people sitting back and being apathetic towards global warming thinking scientists will take care of the problem.
WEAPONISATION
Depending on who has their hands on this technology. We're talking about technology that can be used to cause droughts or famines to soften the enemy and potentially have a deadly effect on large civilian populations. according to one study headed by Col Tamzy J. House
"A high-risk, high-reward endeavor, weather-modification offers a dilemma
not unlike the splitting of the atom. While some segments of society will
always be reluctant to examine controversial issues such as weather-modification,
the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field
are ignored at our own peril. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting
those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns
to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control,
weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options
to defeat or coerce an adversary.
Some of the potential uses of this technology according to the same paper are:
DEGRADE ENEMY FORCES | ENHANCE FRIENDLY FORCES |
Precipitation Enhancement | Precipitation Avoidance |
- Flood Lines of Communication | - Maintain/Improve LOC |
- Reduce PGM/Recce Effectiveness | - Maintain Visibility |
- Decrease Comfort Level/Morale | - Maintain Comfort Level/Morale |
Storm Enhancement | Storm Modification |
- Deny Operations | - Choose Battlespace Environment |
Precipitation Denial | Space Weather |
- Deny Fresh Water | - Improve Communication Reliability |
-- Induce Drought | - Intercept Enemy Transmissions |
Space Weather | - Revitalize Space Assets |
- Disrupt Communications/Radar | Fog and Cloud Generation |
- Disable/Destroy Space Assets | - Increase Concealment |
Fog and Cloud Removal | Fog and Cloud Removal |
- Deny Concealment | - Maintain Airfield Operations |
- Increase Vulnerability to PGM/Recce | - Enhance PGM Effectiveness |
Detect Hostile Weather Activities | Defend against Enemy Capabilities |
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
CONCLUSION
Rebuttals will be provided in the next round. I'm a procrastinator and running short on time but I'd like to point out that my opponent hasn't made much of a case for why climate engineering will be an effective solution to the problem of global warming or why it's necessarily a better solution than more practical methods like reducing harmful emissions. NZlockie, you have the floor. Good luck.
Return To Top | Posted:
I thank CON for his last round. He's brought up a couple of issues which I'd like to address.
Return To Top | Posted:
I'll do all the counter rebuttals next round, to keep the debate fair for my opponent, since he also can only do them the next round. I will point out that my opponent drops my arguments about the unpredictable effects of playing with mother nature and proposes a false dichotomy, where we must choose between apathy and taking, extremely high risk approaches to fixing global warming such as climate engineering projects. My suggestion is that the international community, focuses solely on reducing harmful emissions instead of going into a panic and throwing this hail Mary.
It should be noted that besides my argument for the unpredictability of doing this being dropped, that my arguments on the moral hazard have been dropped as well.
My opponent hasn't really provided much for positive argumentation and I'm in a rush due to just starting school and opting to take an extremely accelerated course, but I digress.
Political Viability
Different countries and large groups of people are going to have different opinions on what constitutes a good average temperature for the planet. Countries are finding it just about impossible to agree on how much emissions to cut. If we're having a difficult time coming to an agreement on that than agreeing on climate engineering will be impossible.
" You recall the Kyoto Protocol. It was never ratified by the United States – defeated 95-0 in the US Senate in 1997, in fact – and has proven just as ineffective elsewhere around the world. It was supposed to be first step in the world's cutback of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that are warming our atmosphere.
The hard truth be told, essentially none of those who signed onto the treaty have been able to cutback their greenhouse gas emissions.
People – surprise, surprise – demand to be warm at the cheapest prices. Developing countries like China and India have ignored it completely, with their emission rising at 6% to 8% a year. China now emits more greenhouse gases than even the United States." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan
I disagree with taking any action at all but on the other hand if action is needed to save the planet, it will be impossible to get the world to agree on and pursue this goal in unison. The evidence for this is what has occurred every single time the world has got together to solve this problem. If action is taken, it needs to be done by a small group of countries or billionaires and they need to ignore the world or risk getting absolutely nothing done at all.
Return To Top | Posted:
I thank my opponent for his round and he has my commiserations on his time constraints. I certainly understand, posting this from the road myself.
Return To Top | Posted:
I don't have much time since it's a super busy week for me but my opponent did actually drop my argument about the inevitable consequences of playing God with Mother Nature. His premises actually support my argument.
"It should also be noted that we wholeheartedly endorse the cutting back of greenhouse emissions. My opponent seems to think this is an either/or situation. It's not. We made the point that emissions MUST be cut back"
If you're cutting back on emissions anyway there is absolutely no point in using the extremely high risk climate engineering projects.
"I agree that getting a representative group to come to a consensus will have some unique challenges - but we should not assume that such a consensus is an impossibility. "
Just as the Kyoto treaty has proven to be a total waste of time this will as well. We already know what happens when the international community try to agree on something.
If this extremely high risk way is to work, it has to be done by a few entities that don't care about a consensus.
I find it funny that my opponent brings up the US military endorsing climate engineering, which only goes to support my conclusion.
Conclusion- climate engineering is extremely dangerous and not even practical as evidenced by similar situations such as the Kyoto treaty.
Vote Con
Return To Top | Posted:
I wanted clarification from whiteflame by the way. It may have come across wrong but I know he gets his votes right 100% of the time.Posted 2015-01-18 22:39:57
I think it's one good way to ensure you're not coming across as arguing. In general anyway. I'm sure there's other techniques involving assertions. Probably.Posted 2015-01-18 16:27:47
Okay, so in your opinion, questions are good, and assertions are bad?Posted 2015-01-18 16:19:53
"where do we differentiate arguing with a judgement and giving meaningful criticism?"
I think debaters should (generally speaking) not be critiquing judges, but asking the judges questions about their judgment (like, what did you mean by this, or why didn't you weight this, etc).Posted 2015-01-18 12:30:12
Haha. "Learn your place". Wow. Posted 2015-01-18 10:33:29
In no relation to this debate (it just made me think of the topic), where do we differentiate arguing with a judgement and giving meaningful criticism? Is it the use of specifics that crosses the line, or something else? This debate has brought a lot of interesting questions up. Posted 2015-01-18 08:23:49
Hmm, I wonder...Posted 2015-01-18 08:22:06
Oh okay, awesome. Thanks.Posted 2015-01-18 06:57:55
I'll move this to the comments under my judgment and post a response there.Posted 2015-01-18 06:31:31
Hey Wylted, there's the ability to make comments like these directly underneath the Judge's decision. It makes it easier for people to follow what you're referring to. You should do that! Posted 2015-01-18 06:21:03
I feel like I should have been able to just copy and paste his argument there and just say "I agree" and win.Posted 2015-01-18 06:07:29
My opponent did agree with me that Mother Nature typically responds in a worse manner when you try to interfere with it.Posted 2015-01-18 06:06:40
@Whiteflame, it seemed lock NZlockie agreed that when you mess with nature the consequences are typically totally unpredictable and could be extremely devastating. Shouldn't that impact be given to me?
If we agree that the results of climate engineering are completely unpredictable and potentially devastating, is argument down any other lines even neccesary?Posted 2015-01-18 06:05:39
@Stag, stop being an idiot. You brought up the judgement vs voting thing in an attempt to get under people's skins. The only motive to bring that up was to imply some form of moral superiority.Posted 2015-01-18 06:03:43
--- Well obviously you want to continue this menial conversation in the hopes of coming out on top, so how about you back off a little bit? I mean, by god, what are you trying to prove? We have a disagreement on how we should term judgements (which is of deep importance to me), and you are trying to bloat it into some kind of ego play. Back the hell off if you're going to bring this petty bullshit here.
Now please, enjoy the site and stop trying to instigate drama. I told you several times I did not want to argue this, and you dare to tell me to back off? Learn your place, and some respect. Otherwise you can GTFO. We're all friends here, and we do not need to accommodate this kindergarten nonsense. Posted 2015-01-18 05:18:36
Why would you even bring up the difference of words. They're synonyms and though I think bringing them up is your petty way to feign moral superiority, doesn't mean I think it's a huge ethical issue.
@Stag, you have an over eating presence on this site. Why don't you just back off a little and stop being so present?
I know about 5 people who stay away from this site, strictly my because of your overbearing presence.
Posted 2015-01-18 04:39:54
Although I do believe in superior morals, and since I believe my morals are correct, I guess you would not be wrong in accusing me of having a moral superiority complex. Although is the use of the word judging over voting really a major moral issue, lolPosted 2015-01-18 03:10:29
You obviously do not understand my personality or my intentions, so maybe you can stop trying to judge me. It is not very productive, and if anything, a little menial, so let us drop it Posted 2015-01-18 03:08:47
Where did I claimed that you said that?
It's clearly implied. The fact you even care implies a moral superiority complex. There was a good way to mention the same exact thing and a bad way. As a debator and somebody who should be intimately familiar with rhetoric, your choice of words is troubling.
Posted 2015-01-18 03:06:13
Where did I claim I was being morally superior? You probably looked farther into this than I did.
I nag people all the time about saying "voting" instead of "judging", because I strongly believe we should use the terms correctly.
Hence nzlockies *eyeroll*Posted 2015-01-17 09:48:59
You're clearly speaking from a position of implied moral superiority, which is offensive. This isn't about differing opinions but about demonstrating respect. It's not what you say Stag, it's how you say it.Posted 2015-01-17 07:38:24
Am I a jerk, or just someone who has a differing opinion than yours? Posted 2015-01-17 05:59:00
It doesn't matter. You just want to be a jerk. We can debate the importance of it soon if you want. Voting and judging are synonyms when used in this context.Posted 2015-01-17 05:48:08
Great debate, guys! It was a fun read. Posted 2015-01-17 05:12:51
I think it matters, but we will leave that for another time. Posted 2015-01-17 01:49:58
LolPosted 2015-01-16 16:08:00
It really doesn't matter, Stag. I call them judgments but you can call them whatever you like, and whiteflame has that same right. You could call them Stag Units from now on if you wanted to.Posted 2015-01-16 14:55:31
*eye roll*Posted 2015-01-16 14:51:55
You mean judgement? We do not vote.Posted 2015-01-16 14:40:17
Awesome Posted 2015-01-16 13:29:04
I'll get a vote up on this sometime this weekend.Posted 2015-01-16 06:55:56
Me either. Posted 2015-01-13 17:44:50
*shrug* I don't find a problem with your debating tactics.Posted 2015-01-13 16:06:06
About 30 minutes to research and write an argument. Sweet, this seems like funPosted 2015-01-12 12:52:59
Cool. I can't control what measures you use to judge me and I'm OK with that. I will always present my argument in the most persuasive way possible. For me that means, language, formatting, style and tone.
We totally disagree on misdirection being deception. Deception is lying and untruth. Misdirection is making you focus on what I want you to focus on instead of what you SHOULD focus on. Crucially, the truth is never hidden or misrepresented.
That photo is a classic example. It is clearly photoshopped. My caption below it distracts from that fact and hopefully stops you from focusing on the photo itself and saying, "oh that looks fake." But crucially, nothing has been hidden so it's not deceptive. Posted 2015-01-09 10:22:10
But misdirection in principal is deception. JSYK, I never will let those little tricks you use weigh into my judgements Posted 2015-01-09 09:50:45
Deception is not even the right word.
I pretend that we are debating as we would politicians.
So obviously a politicians goal is to win, in anyway possible.
That does not change my disgust that they use misdirection or whatever you care to call it. Posted 2015-01-09 09:49:58
It's not deceptive. At best it might be considered misdirection.
Id actually be quite offended if you accused me of using deception. Posted 2015-01-09 09:42:24
Welp! 2 hours left.
I do not have a problem with using good speech to persuade an audience.
I'm just a little queasy about intentionally deceptive tactics.Posted 2015-01-09 07:13:35
Haha! I don't think it's cheap or underhanded. Debate is about the skill of communication and persuasion.
I always put a lot of thought into the specific words I use, not only for their ability to communicate thoughts, but also for their ability to communicate tone and manipulate emotion.
It's nothing new, it's public speaking 101. I doubt that there's anything I've done here that would not be obvious to anyone looking for it.
And to be very clear, I'm not attempting to deceive here. My arguments are valid and I'm attempting to cast them in the best possible light so that they will have the best possible chance to succeed.
Don't hate the playa! Posted 2015-01-08 15:56:45
@Stag, He can debate however he wants. I'm not worried about any tactics he uses. Thanks for your concern, though.Posted 2015-01-08 15:45:05
@Stag, He can debate however he wants. I'm not worried about any tactics he uses. Thanks for your concern, though.Posted 2015-01-08 15:43:42
Ah, I remember now. Cheap and underhandedPosted 2015-01-08 15:41:26
Okay, I should of fully read the comments. NZlockie, I believe I complained about your debating tactics before. What was the word I used?Posted 2015-01-08 15:39:01
NZlockie, why did you assume Wylted was playing devils advocate? I think this says something about societal bias on certain issues Posted 2015-01-08 15:36:41
*in a louder voice* Of course all this is an elaborate double bluff. My side is absolutely the obviously correct side in this debate. I never employ these lame tricks, I respect the judges on this site too much to try something lame like that.
This was all a ruse to trick you into confessing that YOU employ such underhanded tactics.
HA!
AHA!
You fell for it sir!
Posted 2015-01-08 14:33:53
There's a few others in there but they may actually be damaging to my case if I point them out so I'll leave it there.
Posted 2015-01-08 14:28:36
Oh I have subtle ones in there as well. I used a gradient colouring for three of my points to distract people from my actual text. If you check my other debates you'll see I never do that.
I spent quite a bit of time on the formatting and layout of this argument for a similar reason. Posted 2015-01-08 14:27:05
LOL, I actually assumed that. I do the same thing but usually my psychological tricks are a lot more subtle. I don't want people to call me on my crap.Posted 2015-01-08 14:18:03
I probably shouldn't say this here and now but whenever I find myself arguing a side I wholeheartedly disagree with, I like to use all those stupid psychological things they teach you. They almost never work, but you never know, maybe sub-consciously some of them might stick.
By claiming that you're "graciously" playing devil's advocate, it might sub-consciously communicate to someone reading this that your side is the "obviously wrong" side, and also that even you don't believe it. If someone thinks that you don't believe your own argument it automatically makes it sound weaker.
If they finish reading and still have no idea which way to vote, human nature says they won't want to look stupid, so they'll vote the side they feel is "obviously" right.
It's the same reason I've posted that obviously photoshopped picture of the polar bear and the same reason that I anthropomorphised him by giving him a human name. Believe it or not, I actually spent quite a bit of time trying out different names for him too. I spend way too much time on this crap.
It's pretty much all bollocks anyway, these people are way too savvy to be sucked in by that. Posted 2015-01-08 14:14:03
I'm not playing Devil's advocate. I'm not sure why you'd think that. The position isn't devil's advocate anyway, the arguments probably won't accurately reflect my reasons for opposing it but I do oppose it. Posted 2015-01-08 13:57:38
Cool! Me too. Good luck to you as well!Posted 2015-01-07 16:41:55
Good luck. I actually plan on finishing this one.Posted 2015-01-07 03:40:41