Please, do not post to this thread.
Format
As discussed in this thread, we will be trying a refereed debate. Rather than trying to arrange for a particular set of debaters, though, anyone is free to join in.
To join, simply send the text of your message to the referee (myself, in this case), by Private Message. Inclusion into the debate is not guaranteed, but reasons for denial will be given. If your post is accepted, it will be posted into this thread by the referee. No one but the referee should post to this thread. If anyone wishes to comment on it in a less restricted format, they may feel free to start a companion thread.
All posts must fulfill the following restrictions:
- Assertions must be cited.
- A return to a previous topic may only occur if new data has been found.
- The general SDMBer must be able to understand your post (clarity of writing.)
- An even mix of offense and defense. Your posts should neither ignore your opposing posters, nor should they be nothing more than questioning and nitpicking every thing they have said. (If you would like to clarify a minor detail with your opponent, we would rather this be done via PM directly.)
- Quoting other posters is frowned upon (but not illegal.) It is preferred that any new response be presented as a thesis rather than as a conversation.
- The Referee will not be a debater in the thread.
New rules may be instituted based on the basic goal, which is to create an educational and entertaining output for the lurking masses, without them having to wade through pages of crap.
Please, do not post to this thread.
Resolved: It is not worth responding to the changing climate
For the purposes of the debate, we will assume that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is the best scientific assessment of what can be expected that there is, but not necessarily economic. The economics of the various options, versus the effect on human livlihood globally and in the US/EU/other modern nation, is the only topic to be debated.
I will be refereeing posts to the topic. Full disclosure: My personal stance on the topic is that while many of the things which are recommended to fight global warming are things that should be done anyways (using nuclear energy, for instance), trying to do this to fight global warming is likely a pointless exercise since China, India, and every other future developing nation is going to take up any slack we give. And more importantly, the only people who will really experience a significantly harder quality of life live in places where the quality of life is so low to begin with that blaming global warming is rather avoiding the issue. Do we really need to spend trillions of dollars to save impoverished Africans from one more thing that’s going to kill them? You might as well spend that money conquering those nations and turning them into self-sustaining and profitable true democracies. I am skeptical that fighting global warming will aid the US nor most modern nations since we have the money and ability to engineer our way around it, and such engineering is new industry, not a loss.
Please, do not post to this thread.