args

CON

• CON

  Unlike in the past 400000 years where CO2 levels lagged...

  Show full argument

  Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

  This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years. http://www.futuretimeline.net...; width="558" height="454" />This is a graph showing the same thing except for the years 1850-2000. At the year around 1975 a big change takes place in the way CO2 levels and temperature are related. Unlike in the past 400000 years where CO2 levels lagged behind temperature; starting around 1975 the CO2 levels rise almost Simultaneously. In the past 25 to 40 years there have been no worldwide effecting volcanoes, asteroids, or anything else that could cause that change the relationship between CO2 and temperature other than humans. Another element of evidence is that "when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years. The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."-http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a graph of the results: http://upload.wikimedia.org...; /> With this you don't even have to be a scientist to find that with no human influence it's incredibly different. Also even if CO2 isn't enough; scientists have found a new green house gas that produced by humans and is 7100 times stronger than Carbon Dioxide. http://en.wikipedia.org....

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.39

    climate: 16.28

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)

    change: 11.11

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
• CON

  Besides Governmental actions, most encouraged ways to...

  Show full argument

  Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

  My partner and I negate the resolution"Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. A Developed Country is a sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other `less developed nations or one that is highly industrialized. The term " Developed Countries" is too broad. There is a generalization that every developed country emits a significant amount of CO2 and can afford the taxation costs of mitigation. For example, India, even with advanced technology, is in a national debt of $ 345.8 billion. The World Bank classifies all low- and middle-income countries as developing. We feel it necessary to define the following terms: Moral Obligation- an obligation composed of morals of ethics and injustices. Climate change -the perpetual fluctuation in weather patterns in a particular region or worldwide. However, unlike global warming, which refers to just to the accession in the earth"s surface temperature" climate change refers to alterations in a regions overall weather patterns, including precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, Contention I : The cost of mitigating climate change in developed countries will negatively affect the economy. b In order to mitigate climate change as a government , the country must raise taxes. In Australia, Carbon is taxed at 23 per ton. According to the Australian government"s modeling, this is likely to cause the cost of living to increase by an average of 0.7 per cent in the first year, and another 0.2 per cent in 2015-16. Every year the price will increase by 2.5% until 2015. Besides Governmental actions, most encouraged ways to control your carbon footprint are inconvenient and expensive. For example, carpooling, hybrid cars, and avoiding reforestation are inconvenient. Most Hybrid cars cost between $2,000 and $10,000 more than a gasoline engine car. To some people, they are not an option because of the higher prices. The average Hybrid has about 15-27 miles per gallon and most new gasoline powered cars get 22-29 mpg. Also, some people cannot lower the amount of gasoline they use. Not all occupants of a country are economically stable and therefore, our economy cannot afford the cost and taxes of mitigation. Contention 2: Certain aspects of climate change are uncontrollable and not caused by humankind. Solar emission and slow changes in the earth"s orbital elements are natural causes of climate change. Solar emission is when magnetic energy in the sun has built up. These are not preventable therefore we don"t have a moral obligation to mitigate it. Also, plate tectonics are not preventable by humans. It is a significant cause of climate change. Certain climate changes are not preventable. For example, during the ice age, the sea level rose 80 meters. Climate on Earth has changed significantly for over 2.4 billion years, even long before human activity could have played a role. According to the National Ocean Service, "Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth"s orbit around the Sun." Contention III: The Mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation. Moral Obligations should not exist. A country must stabilize itself before helping others. The fact is that most developed countries have a high national debt and must work on fixing themselves before fixing the world. For example, even the most developed country in the world, Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. The definition of obligation is "A bond of moral duty." However, with the job of an obligation, our priorities are minimized especially economically. This is not a moral obligation. In fact, saying that developed countries are morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change is unethical. The countries should not be morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change; it should only be encouraged to people and therefore the responsibility of the people, not the government. Therefore Mitigating climate change in developed countries is expensive, not all developed countries are stable, and the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation. In conclusion, climate change should not be dealt with now because we do not have a moral obligation mitigate it

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Developed-Coutries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.38

    climate: 16.65

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.75 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.82)

    sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)

    change: 10.73

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.59 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.78)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
• CON

  Likewise, unemployment in Portugal is also high, while...

  Show full argument

  Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

  Developed countries do not have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In this debate, I will be introducing several arguments. Firstly, I will be explaining how developed countries are not in the position to lessen the gravity of climate change, and therefore there is no moral obligation towards them. Secondly I will be talking about how other "developing countries" have the biggest incentive to reduce emissions, and therefore they must share the burden and the moral obligation towards mitigating the effects. Following on from this, I will be explaining how developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of climate change. "Developed countries" are not in the position to mitigate the effects of climate change, and therefore possess no moral obligation to do this. Many economists consider the financial crisis of 2007"2008, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Countries suddenly found themselves in debt of millions of dollars, along with unemployment rates reaching unprecedented levels. Some of the countries that were affected are indeed considered "developed countries", and are found on the CIA World Fact book list. These countries include Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, Belgium, Ireland, United Kingdom and the United States. The figure for Greek government debt at the end of 2009 was 299.7 billion euros (130% of GDP). This led to disastrous social effects; as showed by the figure for the percentage of people living at "risk of poverty or social exclusion", calculated at 33% in 2011. In 2011, 111000 Greek companies went bankrupt (27% higher than in 2010). Greece was not the only country that suffered. Spain"s economy continues to shrink, whilst unemployment rates have reached 27%. Likewise, unemployment in Portugal is also high, while the government continues to reduce the budget in many important sectors as well as in social welfare. These countries are in no position to mitigate the effects of climate change. They possess an obligation to the peoples of their country: to reduce debt and cut unemployment rates. This must be dealt with, and is their primary moral obligation. If these problems are not dealt with, there will be many more social and political ramifications. Developing countries have the biggest incentive to reduce the effects of climate change; and thus they must share the moral obligation. Developing countries are expected to be the countries who will suffer the worst effects of climate change, comparatively more developing countries are outside temperate zones so will be harder hit by rising temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. Unfortunately, it is the case that countries that have the wealth to tackle these problems are not going to take the lead in reducing emissions. These countries must take responsibility and act in response to climate change; as it their responsibility. The next point ties in with my first argument. I strongly believe developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of effects of climate change. There is a common assumption that developed countries are the only countries who can battle climate change, because the solutions are technological, and the developed world has better science and research infrastructure. But this view is misleading, small solutions can potentially have a big effect in developing nations. Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of climate change, and must take the lead in dealing with the effects.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Developed-countries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change./5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.38

    climate: 16.58

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.67 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)

    change: 10.80

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
• CON

  Climate change has slowed even those co2 is increasing....

  Show full argument

  Climate Shift

  Actually another survey found only 52 percent of meteroligist believe climate change is man made. Liberal meteroligest where far more likely to believe in climate change. Climate change has slowed even those co2 is increasing. How is this? More co2 was released in the industrial era then now but there was no climate change. The sun was also giving of a lot more light in the 90s and that could have raised the climate. Their is no proof co2 causes the earth to warm. I would remind you that in the 70s, some scientist said that co2 would cause tempature to drop and create a new ice age. I again state that climate models have failed and none of the apociliptic predictions have happened. http://dailycaller.com... http://www.principia-scientific.org... http://www.forbes.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.23

    climate: 22.13

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 9.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.94)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)

    change: 5.10

    premises: 4.71 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  But the downward push on demand for tree farms that...

  Show full argument

  Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

  zarul: "I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises." me: Notice I said all other things being equal. But I said nothing about whether or not aggregate demand has increased, just that recycling paper lowers it. So even if demand for tree farms was rising, it would have been rising faster if there was no recycled paper. zarul: "2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later)." me; And if you want more trees you would at least want more commercial forests planted. But the downward push on demand for tree farms that recycling causes also has a downward effect on profit margins, and thus leads to less trees. zarul: "3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null." Reply: What exactly is being balanced? The point I am making is that government interference is unintentionally causing harm. zarul: "A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper." Reply: And what does what the tree turn into have to do with carbon dioxide? If I planted a tree to cut it down and then changed my mind and thought I just wanted to look at it, that would But the downward push on demand for tree farms that recycling causes also has a downward effect on profit margins, and thus leads to less trees. zarul: "3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null." Reply: What exactly is being balanced? The point I am making is that government interference is unintentionally causing harm. zarul: "A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper." Reply: And what does what the tree turn into have to do with carbon dioxide? If I planted a tree to cut it down and then changed my mind and thought I just wanted to look at it, that would change how it regulated carbon dioxide in the air? Plus, younger trees would be growing, thus using more energy and carbon dioxide. Older trees quit growing, so would need less carbon dioxide. zarul: B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. Reply: No, because the trees are grown again and again. Trees are a renewable resource. zarul: C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. Reply: And as said earlier, the trees are continuously grown, so they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. zarul: D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. reply: Trees grown for commercial purposes also have roots. As for soil erosion and tree forests, the topic was climate change. zarul; 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. reply: Yes, and recycling ensures that less of that land will be used for trees. And if less trees means more global warming, then recycling paper is bad for climate change. Plus, there is plenty of land available. zarul: A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. Reply: again, this is about climate change. But if you want more land efficiency, then you would want to develop genetically engineered super-crops, not recycle. zarul: B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). Reply: You have no reason for believing that commercials trees do nothing for the environment. The whole point of not recycling paper is that more trees will be planted. zarul: C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. Reply: Native forests get cut down because they are usually in the way of building something or planting something else. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging that at least some of that forest that is cut down is grown back. zarul: "3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper." Reply: A: ? Um, what? The whole point of my argument is that by not recycling paper, more corporations would be made for planting trees. B: No, it's not because recycling paper is subsidized by the government, which hides the true cost. If it were cheaper then paper manufactures would quit buying trees and collect the paper from your house itself. The only way recycling a newspaper would be cheaper is if you read the same newspaper everyday. Recycling is a manufacturing process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage it. This is no more better for the environment then just cutting down trees grown for commercial purposes. The difference is that recycling causes less trees to be planted, which is bad for the climate change. zarul: C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). Reply: Again, this is about climate change, not third world development, and if it were, ofcourse poorer countries would want to engage in new commercial industry. That's what makes them poor is lack of commercial industry. And you have no reason for believing that tree farm trees do nothing for the environment. Since they are constantly growing, they are using more energy and hence more carbon dioxide. zarul: D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. Reply: No, recycling just ensures that less of what is cut down will be grown back. Since profit margins are lower for growing trees, that land will be used to grow something else. zarul: "III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does." Reply: Climate change is global; it doesn't occur in select countries. That's why Al Gore's book was called EARTH in the Balance, not Vanuatu in the Balance. The environmental movement is what hurts poor countries because it seeks to take away cheap, abundant energy. Why care about respiratory problems that develop in your old age if you live on the brink of starvation and don't live to be that old? I didn't realize we had to give a reason for people to vote for us (other than our arguments), but mine would have to be: Vote for me, since I don't base my arguments off of pious superstition and ignore the fundamental functioning mechanisms of reality.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Recycling-paper-is-a-good-way-to-fight-climate-change./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.20

    climate: 16.08

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 6.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 11.12

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.78 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.47)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  You have done neither of these basic things so far. ......

  Show full argument

  Human caused climate change is nonsense

  >>>In order to win a debate, You have to, Either show evidence or use logic to convince the voters that you are correct and that your opponent is wrong. You have done neither of these basic things so far. I have shown evidence. For example, In Round 1 I gave evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. I will cite my sources in the comments. I have also rebutted your arguments. Note: you do not need to use logic in your rebuttals. You can simply state why something would not work. . . Also, You have claimed that having studied the properties of CO2 for 10 years gives you a position of authority on the matter. It does not. Your conspiracy theory makes little sense, And you have refuted none of my arguments. For example, You said that: The Arctic had forest growth as recent as 1000 years ago Climate researchers are fraudulent They manipulated the evidence There is no evidence for any of these claims, And then for you to say: "And thus all climate researchers are criminals and global warming doesn't exist" is plainly ridiculous. As previously said, I will cite my sources in the comments. And if you state that the sources are from You have done neither of these basic things so far. I have shown evidence. For example, In Round 1 I gave evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. I will cite my sources in the comments. I have also rebutted your arguments. Note: you do not need to use logic in your rebuttals. You can simply state why something would not work. . . Also, You have claimed that having studied the properties of CO2 for 10 years gives you a position of authority on the matter. It does not. Your conspiracy theory makes little sense, And you have refuted none of my arguments. For example, You said that: The Arctic had forest growth as recent as 1000 years ago Climate researchers are fraudulent They manipulated the evidence There is no evidence for any of these claims, And then for you to say: "And thus all climate researchers are criminals and global warming doesn't exist" is plainly ridiculous. As previously said, I will cite my sources in the comments. And if you state that the sources are from climate research organisations, Well - yes, They are, But there is no evidence for the fact that climate researchers are fraudulent, So that's an invalid dispute.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.14

    climate: 18.80

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 8.36 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 8.33

    conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
• CON

  Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will...

  Show full argument

  Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

  Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Reserved-for-FollowerofChrist-Climate-change-is-real-and-a-massive-threat-to-humanity./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.11

    climate: 16.48

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.59 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 10.63

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.50 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  Scientists theorize that this is due to increased amounts...

  Show full argument

  Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

  There is so much on this issue I don't know what to explain first. Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend. No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au... No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org... Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more) Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it. Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless. http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around. Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au... Lags warming 3: http://i29.tinypic.com... Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years: Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com... (I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.) Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown. Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org... Fact 7: The Earth has been warming for 15000 (or 20000) years. Warming for 15000 (or 20000 it depends on the data) years: http://www.oarval.org... Fact 8: In the last 8000 years, we have had 4 major global warm periods naturally. We had the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Holocene maximum. All major warm periods: http://notrickszone.com... Medieval warm period was global 1: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... Medieval warm period was global 2: http://www.climatedepot.com... Fact 9: All major planet bodies in our solar system are experiencing rapid climate change, indicating that the heating on Earth could be caused by something in the solar system, not the planet. Mars: Ice caps are shrinking, two pictures showed possible warming (these could be unreliable due to dust storms), atmosphere is gaining clouds, ozone and water vapor (indicating warming). Pluto: Mysterious dark spots are becoming larger, atmospheric pressure increased by 300% (indicating warming) Saturn: Giving off x-rays, growing storm spots and other hot spots in its atmosphere (indicating warming) Uranus: Polar shifts, 2 large storms spots that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming) Mercury: Gaining a magnetic field, polar ice caps growing (indicating cooling) Jupiter: Plasma clouds merging together and growing new storm spots (indicating an 18 degree Celsius warming) Venus: 2500% increase in green glow indicating more oxygen in its atmosphere Neptune: Weird changes in light intensity. Earth: Rapid warming As you can see, every major planet in our solar system is experiencing rapid climate change. Scientists theorize that this is due to increased amounts of energy in the space around our solar system. Fact 10: There is no scientific way to test whether Co2 causes global warming. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Fact 11: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling. Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov... As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell. In conclusion, I have provided 11 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it. While my opponent gives links to a consensus and impacts of possible warming, I have focused on the argument at hand. Explaining why Co2 does not drive climate. While my opponent has made little to no argument, I have shown why the conclusions of the scientists in the consensus he listed were wrong. I thank my opponent for this debate, and may the best man/woman win!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropic-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.08

    climate: 16.61

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 10.47

    conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human...

  Show full argument

  Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

  Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether "human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what "human activity" is and what level of change constitutes "Climate Change". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Is-Human-Activity-an-addition-to-increased-Global-Warming-Climate-Change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 27.02

    climate: 16.18

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 10.84

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.71 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
• CON

  Besides, How are these animal important they just take up...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is a real issue

  My opponent has used the same authoritarian approach used by climate scientists. He assumes because something has become accepted that it can't be later disputed. Let go over what got from liberal media sources The liberal media told you: Sea level rising; this, If it happens, Is predicted to displace 143 million people not to mention disrupt international trading, Food production, Land animal/plants ecosystem and living space and the planetary absorption/reflection of the sun's rays. The counterargument we can just clear away national forest, Parks, And open spaces and use as more spacing for houses. Besides, We all know that the sea level rising is all a shame made by Obama and crew of scientist. Loo around are water level rising inpoll and ocean no they have always been the same and will remain the same. The liberal media told you: Ecosystem collapse; as you might have read many animals, And plants alike are sensitive to ecosystem change causing species to die out or become reduced which could potentially allow an invasive species to come in or a chain reaction of species dying out which will decrease the earth's biodiversity and overall planetary sustainability. Counter Argument: That's good thing for animals to bother us. Besides, How are these animal important they just take up space. We used their space for more buildings and homes which are I'm[portant than the animals. We have peta, Who can take these animals in. These animals are dangerous so we should eliminate them The liberal media told you: Carbon and other particles have been rising in ppm, For the most part, These last few centuries, This could have an impact on the overall health and quality of life the atmosphere could provide to us by exposing us all to an unhealthy amount of particles that might impede our body's ability to function Counter arugemt. Could and not would. Besidees what little more co2 going to cause. Nothing dangerous that's for sure. We have always been using cars and nothing has happen in all those years why think it going happen now The liberal media told you: As I said before currently our planet's ecosystem is strained, You might have heard about banana farms being killed off, Or species going extinct, Perhaps the killer wasp stories or the invasive species stories. Ecosystems have long evolved in such a way to even create breeds of the same species just so it thrives and contributes to a healthy ecosystem, When species die it leaves the local area without its overall stability and vulnerable to intrusion and entropy of the ecosystem. A shoddy comparison is a free market, Where the businesses have specialized in their niche to be the best in that field that is what life has done to thrive in their ecosystems, But if you change variables suddenly some can't change fast enough and will go under. That is what happens in both the free market and in ecosystems. Counter arugemnt: This is fake news. The killer wasp and the banana farm story are just used to make the republicans look bad. Well they have failed because we know that this isn't true which is why we have used many traditional ways of doing work and getting work done

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.85

    climate: 14.52

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 12.33

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.16 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.23)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)