args

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

My opponents case goes as follows: 1. Global warming is an issue (exists and is man made) 2. Global warming causes disasters and hurts the economy. Now, my arguments on (2) proved environmental regulation bad. Further, (1) is the most important issue. If 1 is proven not to exist, or not man made I win the debate as fighting a natural problem spending billions of dollars is futile and a waste, and if global warming does exist (something my opponent has not responded too) I then win the debate. I have proven both of these points false. I will proceed: Fraud and methodology: Now, my opponent goes on to claim my data is false because it does not cover the whole world, (surface scanners) yet I have proven this. ANY surface scanner in an urban area will logically have a higher temperature reading then one in a rural one. I have proven throughout this debate this dilemma affected all surface scanners in all countries as all countries made this mistake. My opponent also ignores my case on how computer models (computer models is all of the evidence pro global warming) is highly flawed. Based on all of the computer model data, their predictions have always been wrong and exaggerated. [1] Every model made over guesses the amount of warming and exaggerates it ALL. As the IPCC notes in the book I am citing: “Models still show significant error, important large scale problems also remain. … Important small scale processes cannot be explicitly represented in models … Significant uncertainties, in particular are associated with resentation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change”.[1] This essentially means all of the global warming fata is flawed. My opponent ignored this point, although I did state it last round, hence the point still stands. My opponent then claims my data on scandals is not enough, I actually agree, BUT this does show large studies (the IPCC) are no longer accurate, and if readers scan my opponents sources and then the sources within the source, it always cites the IPCC. My opponents data is now highly faulty on those grounds. The point still stands. CO2 and N2O: My opponents claim here is his evidence refutes my CO2 claim, this is actually false. Nowhere in this debate (I have read your responses 3 times just by that comment) did I actually see you do; a) even find a correlation b) show that cycles from 1000s of years ago find a correlation. My opponent finds only a correlation in modern day times in round two, but this is highly refutable with natural cycles. There are major cycles every 11,000 years or so (stated) and minor changes every 1500 years or so (also stated). Now, the current warming phase was highly predictable using the 1500 year cycle data. This 1500 year cycle is well documented.[2] This fully explains the current warming phase. Further if CO2 was a climate factor, if we saw natural increases in CO2 there would also be natural rises in temperature hundreds of years ago, and there is no correlation, therefore the correlation fails on a scientific basis. Using figure 2.4 in source (1) we observe no statistical correlation, CO2 is low temperature may be high or vice versa. This right here disproves the theory. (If CO2 actually had an impact, natural increases would also raise temperature, it did not, hence it has no correlation) N2O may or may not make warming, but as I pointed out last round N2O is mainly a natural gas, and it does not have enough ppm (parts per million) to have any effects. My opponent ignores this analysis. My opponent also introduces new arguments last round (methane etc, never mentioned before this point) which is a conduct violation and basic DDO informal rules mean these arguments are thrown out. My opponent argued CO2 and N2O the whole debate, adding new substances last round is a conduct violation AND is discounted. May the judge rule “jury, ignore the previous statement.” Ice Sheets You NEVER argued overall ice sheets, you argued the same ones I argued, hence your argumentation here is a LIE. I have argued this whole debate: Northern ice expanding Southern ice expanding Various glaciers also expanding I covered almost every glacier, they are all expanding. My opponent this round actually dodges last rounds argumentation, hence I win the point. My opponent dropped arguments Global cooling Computer models (all of global warming “evidence”) is faulty Global warming does not exist (my opponent abandoned this idea round 3) CONCLUSION/VOTING ISSUES: My opponent dropped some of the 3 most critical sub points (two of them prove global warming is actually false) hence my opponent already loses the debate. Voting issues: 1) I have proven global warming is fake 2) I have proven if global warming exists, it is more likely due to sun cycles NOT emissions 3) My opponent dropped vital points. VOTE CON, it is futile to spend money on a natural occurrence OR it is futile to fight a non existent problem. [1] MacRae, Paul. “ Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears.” Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. [2] Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.” Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.