args

Global Warming is Real.

Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate! I look forward to an intellectually challenging discussion. Now to my opening arguments. The key to determining whether or not "Global Warming" as defined by my opponent is a myth or not, is the definition he provided: "Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate." Firstly, the belief that a warming period observed by our scientists and thought to be caused by man is permanent is misguided. The simple reality is, these changes are in no way permanent. We know that the climate millions of years ago was different, more humid and warm, and we also know that we have had ice ages in the past. We know that the climate during the first millenias of earth's existence were exceedingly moist and warm as well. We can, therefore, rightly acknowledge that it is not simply global warming that we see, but climate change. But is it permanent? The answer, of course, is no. For support, I point to the Great Oxygen Event, which took place nearly 2.4 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria, living organisms on earth, produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The Great Oxygen Event occurred when the cyanobacteria began to produce so much oxygen that the natural consumers of their oxygen could not keep up, and the earth's atmosphere became saturated with free and pure oxygen. Pure oxygen was not seen extensively in that time, and as such, the result of the increase in oxygen's concentration in the atmosphere was a mass extinction event of all organisms who did not require oxygen to live. Furthermore, the oxygen reacted with the methane in the atmosphere to produce the Huronian Glaciation, a 300 million year long period of cold temperatures and formations of glaciers.[1] And yet, here today we see that life as moved on. The earth has grown, experienced many more changes in climate, from more ice ages to warm humid climates yet again. The changes take place over a long period of time, yes. But the changes that lead to the Great Oxygen Event were extremely rapid in the reckoning of geology. Modern estimates believe that photosynthesis taking place at the rate we see today could have generated the Great Oxygen Event in roughly 2,000 years. [2] The driving point behind this argument is that Rapid climate change is not new, nor should it be unexpected. It has happened before, and it very well may happen again. Now, I will move to a key argument against the fears propagated by Climate Change enthusiasts. Humans exist naturally on earth, we evolved to this point of intelligence and biological stability as a species through nature. Our very existence is a natural thing. How then, can anything we do be considered unnatural? We were not plopped down on earth suddenly. It is not as if we use magic to convert these natural materials into fuel and gases. We operate under the confines of nature's laws, being of nature herself. Our use of fossil fuels, then, is not unnatural at all. We are simply utilizing the tools nature gave us to promote our livelihood, much like the Cyanobacteria were doing. And arguably, the cyanobacteria operated at a much faster rate than we do. The warming of oceans by mere fractions of degrees per decade will not spell the end of Earth, nor will it wipe out all life. Just as after the Great Oxygen Event and Huronian Glaciation nature survived and thrived, so too will life on earth survive and thrive even after we are gone, whatever the cause of our disappearance may be. If, then, the use of fossil fuels is natural, having occurred by a natural process and set in motion by a natural life form, and rapid climate change originates not just from man, but from the rest of nature as well, what is all the fuss about? The threat posed by climate change is not directed towards the Earth, or even towards Nature itself. It is directed towards us. Humans are the ones who will be in danger if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Not nature. Nature survives, nature has survived more devastating occurrences than man could ever hope to throw at it. Whole continents have crashed together, been torn apart, mountain ranges have been battered down and raised up, violent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, monstrous meteors and asteroids, and massive extinction events have all occurred during the span of Earth's life. Is it not prideful, arrogant even, to think that Man can possibly compete with such devastating forces? To think that man might be able to destroy nature, when we have barely left a mark with our most powerful weapons of destruction? To sum up my arguments: 1) It is not Global Warming specifically that we observe, but Climate Change, both warming and cooling. The effects of Global Climate change in one direction or another are not permanent. Nature adapts and moves on after every great event. 2) Global Climate Change, whether rapid or slow, is a natural occurrence, and the example of the Great Oxygen Event shows that organisms on Earth have been altering the climate for hundreds of millions of years. We cannot, therefore, expect to leave the climate completely untouched. Nor is it wrong for us to utilize the intelligence nature gave us to promote our livelihood. 3) Because Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence, whether or not it originates from Man, it is nothing for nature or the Earth to fear, and nor is it our duty to fear for Nature or the Earth. Rather, we are the ones who will be adversely affected. I now hand the debate back to Pro. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...