args

The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this wonderful debate topic. I know it is an issue he and I are both very passionate about, though on opposing sides and I look forward to a wonderful debate with lots of information over the next three rounds. Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent. He claims "[1]. Scientists are certain that climate change, at least very significantly, caused by humans [2]. As I always say when I debate religion, you can believe whatever you want, but it's ridiculous to say that the scientific consensus is wrong when you have little to no evidence." This could not be further from the truth. In point of fact, there is little to no evidence that global warming is caused by humans. A random statement, such as, "Pigs on mars are blue" cannot be stated and then give the burden of proof to the opposing side and request that they are the ones who provide proof that you are wrong. This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true. So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. My opponent continues by saying "Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans..." and once again, I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently. For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic (http://www.treehugger.com...). A main claim by global warming supporters is that this ice is melting due to global warming, so if it is now freezing, has global warming ended?! I find it to be important to be clear on this point, global warming caused by humans has not yet been proven. Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact. I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million. If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable. I understand that my opponent thinks taxes will fix the problem. While taxes on shopping bags and businesses could limit the way they they practice, it is by no means a guarantee. Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are? Absolutely. So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly? Or should they continue to increase taxes higher and higher on those who don't comply until they finally submit? When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem. Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org...) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy. In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world. So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not? I cannot stress strongly enough, without clear proof from the opposition, American citizens not be singled out and punished any more than they already are. And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us". I don't find this to be the place for such tactics, surely not for something so unproven, but maybe that's just me.