args

Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.

My opponents and my case are polar opposites, if proves global warming, mine debunks it. Hence my arguments actually refute his claims, and vice versa. So essentially our arguments are exactly the opposite. So my opponent has to prove: (1) Global warming exists and/or is man made This is the only thing he needs to prove, as the rest of his case is irrelevant if humans cant contribute to the warming (hence futile and a waste of time and labor to stop it, its gonna happen anyway), and prove the world is heating up (and if the following thing is not in place, this fails). So essentially my opponent has to prove two things, I have to prove: (1) Global warming is fake and/or natural. Now, this debate is easier on me, as my opponent has the BOP (being instigator and pro), and he has to prove both points, I only need to prove one to show a futile effort or a non-existent threat. So really, the BOP is on my opponent. "Facts" about global warming: My opponents main argument against the data that proves global warming faulty is my evidence is based in america, aka the surface stations. But my opponents case ignores the point: If we are failing in the US, then why would it be better in other countries? In the US, 89% of those surface stations create false results due to the fact certain obstacles (i.e. an air conditioner) create the false signals. [1] Further what my opponent misses is that this data (much of the date her nasa source talks poetic about) relies on this US data. Further, this data was and sometimes is relied throughout the whole world, so really, why would such human error not coincide. Also, for you to validate your point, you also need to prove global surface stations are NOT biased. Also, this site is based in Malaysia (my 1 source last round), and it takes more then US data, and disproves NASA's famed graphs. [2] My opponent then claims these "scientists" account for the.... differences so to speak. The funny thing is these scientists fail in other areas in the same thing. Much of their data relies on faulty mathematical equations that force them to do a lot of assumptions, therefore begging the question of their conclusions. [3] Also to prove they account for the urban effects, I think you must prove through studies that they have dummy variables as well. My opponent then claims my argument on fraud fails to touch every, I understand that, the argument was simply to show many of the evidences you posted may have huge errors in them, hence faulty. He then goes on about CO2, I will refute this. CO2 is NOT enough of the atmosphere to create global warming, its about 3%, and 6% of that CO2 is man made. In other words: "That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels."[4] So CO2, out of the picture. My opponent then talks about N2O, laughing gas. Over 90% of N2O is naturally produced. [5] Before we can assume this has an effect, my opponent must first now show a correlation, prove it, etc. Saying it hurts the ozone is not enough until you prove humans emit it enough to have any major effects, then find me a correlation, then we talk. My opponent then claims certain areas (specifics) are not relevant, that first ignores basic statistics and then he knows makes it easier for him to win. Individual areas are great tools, as a minority effects the majority in statistics overall. If 100 kids exist, 10 are sick, that minority has a large effect if we polled are you sick. Also for there to be global warming, the ice caps are logically suppose to be melting (to account for the rise in sea waters). If I disprove this (I did) then my opponents case crumbles. also: http://www.debate.org... http://bit.ly... No upward trend. Greenland: My opponent concedes the point claiming what happens in any one area explains the whole, that means my opponents arguments are invalid too. So I extend argument, and proceed to his arctic example: Now if your interested, there is a moving graph in the source I am providing, if you look at its data the temperature STAYS THE SAME, on average. Here is how they explain it: "Each frame of animation equals one year. As you can see the temperature does fluctuate but there is clearly no significant general rise in temperature and the portion of the red curve poking above the blue line (i.e. the period when ice would melt) is clearly not growing."[6] Essentially saying the temperatures needed t melt it are not changing in length, hence ice cannot melt. "As you can plainly see the ice is getting thicker [refers to moving picture], not thinning faster than Kojak's hair. Polar Bears will not be drowning, the Walruses will not be beaching themselves due to lack of ice (which by the way is normal and not something to get over-excited about) and the Arctic Fox probably doesn't need to go on the endangered species list because of that old faux global warming." [7] Not to mention growing glaciers. [8] Global cooling: There is ~ 11 year solar cycle, the time your data shows warming. The cycle is over, scientists are now drifting to the earth is cooling, or will begin to cool. "In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback." [9] "Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997... Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific." [10] http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.c3headlines.com... = cooling (graphs wont post peices of.....) Benefits/Harms: Your argument only works if global warming exists, and if it is man made. If it does not exist, then only harms happen (economic). If it is man made, the regulations hurt (economic), and the other harms are inevitable, so it is futile to fight it. So, my opponent must prove both, if anything this is a sub point to the overall factors. Plus, another reason the globe is not heating up is because the atmosphere is not heating up, hence refuting all claims. [11] CONCLUSION: Vote CON, global warming is a hoax and if it exists is natural, hence my opponents case fails as it fights a nonexistent. issue or a futile natural pattern. Soures: [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://1.usa.gov... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://bit.ly... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly... [11] http://bit.ly...