Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...;...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Rebuttals First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's arguments. 1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid This is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3] "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2] From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record Argument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; /> Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory Antarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3] "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence." "Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass." As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5] 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases This is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3] ""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first. Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. " show picture of graph if possible." [6][7] Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources 2. https://www.epa.gov... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://grist.org... 5. http://grist.org... 6. http://grist.org... 7. http://www.grida.no...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.24
      climate: 16.85
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.55 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.57)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 11.40
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.06 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.57)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • PRO

    So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown...

    Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

    Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change. I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises. 2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later). 3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null. II. Why recycling helps the environment. 1. To begin with, I will say that trees from naturally growing forests are important to the climate whereas those made by companies are not as beneficial. 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. 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. C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. 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. So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown to help manage carbon dioxide, but to be made into paper. Trees that have been planted otherwise contribute more to the environment. 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. A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. 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). C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. 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. 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). D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. 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.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Recycling-paper-is-a-good-way-to-fight-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.24
      climate: 17.01
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.72 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 11.23
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.89 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.51)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    As I have stated; developed countries can fix climate...

    Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

    As I have stated; developed countries can fix climate change, they are responsible for climate change, and they MUST fix climate change.

  • PRO

    Carbon from different sources has different amounts of...

    Climate Change is caused by Humans

    Point 1- There is an undeniable spike in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. To deny this is just simply foolish.In a matter of roughly 50-60 years, Co2 levels have spiked from 280 parts per million to over 400. To put that into perspective, in the past 800,000 years, Co2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm to 280 ppm. A change of 100 ppm would usually take 5,000-20,000 years, however, the current spike took a mere 120 years. While Co2 levels have certainly been higher than this previously in the history of the Earth, never before has Earth experienced such a rapid spike in Co2, the current increase is 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age [2]. Point 2 - There is a human fingerprint on the carbon that we release. Carbon from different sources has different amounts of neutrons (called isotopes), for example, Carbon from the ocean is "0" (normal) while atmospheric carbon tends to be from -5 to -9 (meaning 5-9 neutrons removed). However, carbon from fossil fuels is an even lighter form of carbon; -20 to -35 [1]. Using this information, scientists can accurately identify the source of carbon that we find in our atmosphere. It is not coincidental that there’s a rapid spike in Co2 while humans are polluting the air with tons upon tons of fossil fuels, the problem with this is, unlike plants and the ocean, factories don’t take Co2 “back in”. The natural cycle balances the Co2 level by constantly adding and removing Co2, while humans are simply just adding Co2 without removing any [3] as shown by this chart. Point 3 - Using computers, scientists have shown that natural factors simply can't account for the changes we have seen. As shown by the following charts, without accounting human activity, these simulations can’t explain the data we have been receiving. Point 4 - Since Co2 is inevitably a greenhouse gas, such a rapid spike in Co2 will cause temperature changes throughout the Earth. These temperature changes can provide a variety of consequences that scientists and the general population have observed; from rising surface temperatures to rising sea levels to the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere shifting up in recent decades. I won't go to the trouble to prove each of what has been observed for this debate is not about whether or not climate change is real, but whether or not it is caused by humans; both Pro and Con agree that climate change is real. In conclusion, scientists have recorded one of the biggest Co2 spikes in Earth history. Using the fingerprints that come with burning fossil fuels, scientists are able to record how much of the Earth's atmospheric carbon comes from the burning of fossil fuels. While the carbon cycle creates more carbon than factories, the carbon cycle is just that... a cycle, meaning it's constantly balancing the concentration of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere. However, factories, cars, and humans as a whole are just adding carbon to the Earth's atmosphere without ever using atmospheric carbon like the carbon cycle does. On top of that, recent computer simulations have shown that in order to get the type of changes we are currently experiencing... human activity has to be included or else the data we get back is not the one we have observed. The absence of human activity in these simulations results in completely wrong data, while the presence of human activity brings back accurate data; meaning human activity plays a large role in the climate of the earth. Since Co2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and is proven to be directly correlated with temperature (as Co2 goes up so does temperature), a rapid spike in Co2 means rising temperatures across the globe, leading to a variety of consequences that we have recently observed. If not dealt with, these problems can only escalate and cause severe problems/destruction. Links [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://globalwarming-facts.info... [3] https://www.skepticalscience.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-caused-by-Humans/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.18
      climate: 16.33
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 1.15 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.93)
      change: 11.85
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3] CO2 does not...

    Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

    I thank my opposition for accepting this debate. This discussion is about Climate Change Anomalies from the years 1900 to 2200 (see comments section), and whether they are anthropogenic. Anomalies are deviations from "schedule" weather cycles, and can include both hot and cold extremes, making "global warming" only half of this discussion. So, right off the bat, temperature anomalies began rising just after the year 1900 [1]. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> As shown in the following chart [2], this corresponds closely with a recent rise in CO2 emissions. This chart shows that CO2 levels have always travelled in cycles, but broke their most recent scheduled downward cycle to reach their highest level in over 400,000 years. In a sense, one might say nature did half the work on CO2 and the human race took it from there. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> Correllation is obviously not causation, but the mechanics that link CO2 to temperature have been well documented. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3] CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> Oceanic Greenhouse Effects: A Review The oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. However, before the oceans can truly begin warming, the ice caps have to melt. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...; /> And as we can see here [4], though the ice caps have shown about a half-century lag behind the thinner, more responsive atmosphere, they are roughly 1 million square kilometers smaller than they ought to be, as of 2014. It appears that climate anomalies are closely associated with CO2 levels, that CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic and will continue to be so until the next 'natural' CO2 spike roughly one hundred thousand years from now (chart 1), and that the greenhouse mechanisms behind all this are straightforward and established. 1. http://climate.nasa.gov... 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. http://climate.nasa.gov... 4. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Exists/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.08
      climate: 16.93
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.51 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)
      change: 11.15
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.00 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.95)
  • PRO

    The Atlantic. ... In India, rainfall levels might...

    Consequences of geoengineering could be worse than climate change

    Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. 'Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,' says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.01
      climate: 17.57
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 10.44
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    If they continue to decline at such a rate they will be...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    Bees are disappearing world wide at a steady rate since before the 1950s. Thats a fact. If they continue to decline at such a rate they will be gone by 2050 and according to albert einstein humans will perish 4 years later. it has not been proven (yet) but i believe If they continue to decline at such a rate they will be gone by 2050 and according to albert einstein humans will perish 4 years later. it has not been proven (yet) but i believe climate change is a huge factor. Harsh winters, wet or dry springs and late blooms or early blooms followed by frost are a huge stress on honeybees. I believe man is the cause of climate change but thats another debate. Other causes for the decline include pesticides, Genetically modified crops, a reliance on a global economy (shipping foods over long distances), and a lack of diversity within the honeybee species itself (their are only a handful of bee breeders worldwide selling basically the same strain of bee) which makes the species less diverse resulting in a weakness to disease

  • PRO

    If there are any stupid apes out there that believe in...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    If there are any stupid apes out there that believe in human caused climate change, Then please step forward so that I can make a monkey out of you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.91
      climate: 16.62
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.38 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 11.29
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • PRO

    President Barack Obama told a United Nations meeting on...

    Obama: Climate change 'growing and urgent threat'

    President Barack Obama told a United Nations meeting on Tuesday that pollution must be contained to address climate change. Specifically, he called out China, saying that the most populous country on Earth, with the fastest increase in carbon pollution, must join the United States to lead the rest of the world in carbon reduction. "We have a responsibility to lead," Obama said to applause. "That's what big nations have to do." Obama was speaking at the U.N. Climate Summit, a one-day meeting hosted by U.N. Sec

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/obama-talks-climate-change-summit
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.87
      climate: 17.16
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 10.70
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)
  • PRO

    Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    "Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim." harrytruman Sunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate. http://www.scientificamerican.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./6/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.84
      climate: 17.14
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.70
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)

CON

  • CON

    Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    The greenhouse effect is a thing, and hypothetically it would raise temperatures. But adding more and more to our atmosphere does not infinitely raise the temperature, it only raises it to an extent. Yet again I see you have ignored the very important claim that we are coming out of a galatial period, which explains the warming trend, and everything you think it has caused. Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate. And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution? And what does population have anything to do with climate change? Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action. Thanks for reading.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.83
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 11.48
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused...

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused climate change until the 1980s – over a century after the industrial revolution. Developing nations were not initially aware of the damage they were causing, therefore the harm was unintentional. It is unfair to retrospectively punish these nations for something that was unknown to be harmful when it was done. The responsibility should therefore be based upon either current emissions or at most emissions from the period in which the damage caused was known and emissions could have been reduced.

  • CON

    In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If...

    That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

    I would like to thank CarterWale for presenting his arguments. The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption " that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming. First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. "The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years." There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse.[1] This graph shows just one of the lags: [1] Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. "...satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor."[2] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature) Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: "If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2... Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. ... report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s."[2] To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing: [3] Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. "The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths."[1][4] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: [4] Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fifth and most importantly, the predicted "hot-spot" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong."[1] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: [1] The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years: [1] Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era. Considering My Opponent's Arguments I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against. Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming " that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming " not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered. So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming. I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments. Sources [1]: http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [3]: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... [4]: http://joannenova.com.au...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-Humans-Are-Causing-Climate-Change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.79
      climate: 16.68
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 10.10
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • CON

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    Your CMV presupposes that the only way to fight climate change is to stop doing things that negatively effect the environment, but you seem to have completely forgotten about climate control. I'd argue that it's far more likely, given humanity's propensity for technological solutions to problems and the rate at which we've developed so far, that we end up creating ways to control our environment, as opposed to stopping causing damage to it. While I appreciate this isn't physically possible right now, theoretically it is. And we already have certain elements of climate control like cloud bursting nailed. That is certainly one way we can fight climate change without making any (or perhaps very few) of the compromises you went through.

  • CON

    i don't have to its all rubbish all i have to do it point...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    i don't have to its all rubbish all i have to do it point out reality that 99% of scientific data real science all backs the fact that climate change is almost completely man made https://www. Carbonbrief. Org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.75
      climate: 15.87
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.62 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 10.88
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • CON

    The Pope's statement does not further your case (unless...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    In this round I will be refuting my opponent's arguments and I will be resupporting my own arguments My opponent stated "First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist." But what my opponent fails to realize is that quoting the pope is not an argument, an argument needs evidence, the quote from the Pope is not evidence of climate change, rather it is only a claim followed by my opponent's warrant. You can't just quote the pope and call it an argument, thus you have no first argument. The Pope's statement does not further your case (unless he was a climate scientist, then it would) So, because the pope is not a climate researcher I really don't even need to refute his statement but I have done so by showing that the Pope is not a climate scientist. In his first rebuttal my opponent stated that "science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases", but he shows no specific evidence of this occurring. Then my opponent quotes the EPA "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels" However, if this were true then how come the decade long decrease in CO2 was seen, even as fossil fuel combustion increased (In the US alone 3 billion more barrels were used per year). In fact, my opponent conceded that point when he said "Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain", so my opponent has conceded my first point. My opponent stated in rebuttal 2 "Argument two is cherry picking." But he shows no evidence of how it is cherry picking... Thus, this statement ought not to be considered, however I will prove how my second argument was not cherry picking... The definition of cherry picking is "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld." [1] However, I have not cherry picked evidence because of the fact that I offered the statistical analysis of two major climate research satellites which have had their results peer reviewed by the scientific community and been found to be accurate. In fact, if I had cherry picked this evidence it would not show the .2 degree warming trend that it did... What is even more ironic is that my opponent goes on to say "El Nino was responsible for the height of the graph." But even I conceded that the warming trend was there, in fact my opponent just contradicted his entire case by calling the warming trend that was apparent on the graph; El Nino, a regional, natural phenomena, that has nothing to do with Global Climate Change. So, if El Nino caused the warming trend on the graph, then Global Warming is a hoax because all warming trends over the period of the graph can be explained by El Nino (He said it, I didn't). My opponent in rebuttal 3 stated "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence." By definition if the phenomena is not experienced GLOBALLY, then GLOBAL Climate Change is not occurring [1] (simple definition 1) "Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass." If this is true then how come one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming said that the poles would be ice free by 2013 [2], Leon Penetta once said [while talking about Global Climate Change] "The melting of the Polar Ice Caps" [3]. There seems to be a consensus among scientists and Global Warming Theorists that the Ice caps will melt when Global Warming occurs. Then How did my opponent find contradictory evidence? He found such evidence because he quoted a man with 0 climate science experience. His sources 4,5, and 6 are written by Coby Beck "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." [4] So, any quote by him ought to be ignored because it offers no expert value or value of any sort. In fact, my opponent is not even quoting the credible science in some of Beck's blogs, my opponent is quoting Beck's opinions which hold no value. My opponent in his 4th rebuttal quotes the same man again... and his statement ought to be ignored but in another one of my opponent's contradictory statements, he says "temperature moved first [in relation to CO2]", but if this is true, then how come the IPCC said that CO2 caused temperature to move? Which one is it? Either way my opponent has contradicted Global Warming theory as we are debating it and has negated his own refutation. My opponent's graph is quite interesting. The graph appears to show a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, however there are several occasions of temperature and CO2 acting independently, one major example is 400k years before present when the temperature increased dramatically for a (relatively) short period while CO2 decreased, and then again around 380k years ago where temperature decreased dramatically while CO2 increased. So, my opponent's chart, however intriguing, shows once again, that temperature and CO2 act independently from one another. Now I will Strengthen my original cases 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid My opponent has conceded this point (see above for more details) 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record I have shown my opponent's rebuttal of this claim to be false, and his claim of a logical fallacy to be false, however I'd like to strengthen this point more. USCRN the largest and most advanced climate research network in the US has shown a decade long cooling trend. While the trend is statistically 0, it still shows no evidence of global warming. If the entire world is warming, (definition of Global Warming, see above) then how come the United States isn't? [5] s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="1005" height="551" /> Furthering my point, A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming. Again I posit the question, If the world is warming, then how come the US AND Britain (and the surrounding ocean) are not. [6] 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory Seeing as my opponent's refutation of this point was insufficient, I do not feel the need to strengthen this point. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases As I have refuted my opponent's statements about this point I'd like to point out that my opponent has neglected to mention both of my charts for this point, both of which show an obvious independence between CO2 and Temperature, even over the time span of millions of years of data. Judges, seeing as my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at this point in the debate you would be required to vote in favor of the Con. I look forward to reading my opponent's next argument, and I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this debate. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cnsnews.com... [3] http://www.brainyquote.com... [4] http://grist.org... [5] https://wattsupwiththat.com... [6] http://www.newsmax.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.73
      climate: 16.55
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.26 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.51)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 10.18
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • CON

    So, Akhenaten, We meet again, For what should be an...

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    So, Akhenaten, We meet again, For what should be an enjoyable and exciting debate. My first argument is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere began rising faster than ever before, At a time that perfectly coincides with the Industrial Revolution. Sounds like an awful coincidence, Doesn't it? Well, It is not a coincidence by any means, As I will now prove. Firstly, When we burn carbon-based materials such as coal, CO2 is produced. Very simple so far. Secondly, The amount of fuel we burn almost perfectly correlates with the atmospheric levels of CO2. In 1950, The global fuel consumption was 20, 138 terawatt-hours. In 1950, Nearly 5 billion tonnes of CO2 was produced. If we divide the amount of CO2 produced by the number of terawatt-hours, We get approximately 248, 286. This is the 'golden ratio' of climate change - for every terawatt-hour of fuel burnt, Approximately 248, 286 tons of CO2 is released as a result, And this holds true at any point. Thirdly, After measuring the amount of CO2 trapped in ice, We can measure how much CO2 was around at the time the ice was formed. And we can see that current levels are higher than they have been in millions of years. You may now present your argument. Thank you for the debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.69
      climate: 15.59
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 5.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.10
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence...

    Anthropogenic climate change and increased CO2 levels are beneficial to humans and plant life

    Plants like carbon- it's true. But there is a limit- there's too much which could be bad. Too little is also bad. And the deforestation and increasing temperatures are certainly not good for plant life. Most plants have somewhat strict requirements for shade, and more. Since I agree that currently it is probably good for plants (but following current trends it will not be within 8 years), I will not refute any more claims regarding that. It does not lead to more food- what about floods, rainforest destruction, and too hot temperatures such as in coral reefs. Hot weather is relatively new and won't really kill much. But this doesn't matter. We would not have fewer deaths. In 140 years the levels have risen 200 mm. This is almost irreversible and needs to soon be stopped. Facts Evidence Causes Effects Scientific Consensus Vital Signs Questions (FAQ) The consequences of climate change The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions and an increase in the number, duration and intensity of tropical storms. Credit: Left - Mellimage/Shutterstock.com, center - Montree Hanlue/Shutterstock.com. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves. Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change. The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase. "Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." Future effects Some of the long-term effects of global climate change in the United States are as follows, according to the Third National Climate Assessment Report: Change will continue through this century and beyond Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. Global climate is projected to continue to change over this century and beyond. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted globally, and how sensitive the Earth"s climate is to those emissions. Temperatures will continue to rise Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, the temperature rise has not been, and will not be, uniform or smooth across the country or over time. Frost-free season (and growing season) will lengthen The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring in the western United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across the United States, the growing season is projected to continue to lengthen. In a future in which heat-trapping gas emissions continue to grow, increases of a month or more in the lengths of the frost-free and growing seasons are projected across most of the U.S. by the end of the century, with slightly smaller increases in the northern Great Plains. The largest increases in the frost-free season (more than eight weeks) are projected for the western U.S., particularly in high elevation and coastal areas. The increases will be considerably smaller if heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced. Changes in precipitation patterns Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases Average U.S. precipitation has increased since 1900, but some areas have had increases greater than the national average, and some areas have had decreases. More winter and spring precipitation is projected for the northern United States, and less for the Southwest, over this century. Projections of future climate over the U.S. suggest that the recent trend towards increased heavy precipitation events will continue. This trend is projected to occur even in regions where total precipitation is expected to decrease, such as the Southwest. More droughts and heat waves Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere. Droughts in the Southwest and heat waves (periods of abnormally hot weather lasting days to weeks) everywhere are projected to become more intense, and cold waves less intense everywhere. Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves, is projected for much of the western and central U.S. in summer. By the end of this century, what have been once-in-20-year extreme heat days (one-day events) are projected to occur every two or three years over most of the nation. Hurricanes will become stronger and more intense The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s The intensity, frequency and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. Sea level will rise 1-4 feet by 2100 Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100 Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 4 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms. In the next several decades, storm surges and high tides could combine with sea level rise and land subsidence to further increase flooding in many of these regions. Sea level rise will not stop in 2100 because the oceans take a very long time to respond to warmer conditions at the Earth"s surface. Ocean waters will therefore continue to warm and sea level will continue to rise for many centuries at rates equal to or higher than that of the current century.

  • CON

    It sounds like it was written by a control freak who...

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

    The conditions of the debate are very confusing. It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in climate change doesn't understand basic science and politics for that matter. Introducing Maurice Strong - The dirt bag climate change instigator. http://quadrant.org.au... https://steemit.com...

  • CON

    It would die. ... By default those actions are God...

    Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

    hmmmm.... You see, I have never seen the Ozone layer. I have seen many a great things, inspirational things, miracles even, BUT never have I seen evidence of an Ozone layer actually existing. You see, the Ozone layer that you refer to, supposedly has a whole in it. No? Now observe oil in a tray. Ice on water, or an Atmosphere for example: The density of the matter arranges it appropriately so that the densest is at the bottom and least dense at the top. Where would we get a whole? Are you asserting that the entire OZONE layer as a whole, is a specific molecule stretched across the top of the sky, which has become apparently smaller, so that there are openings? Or that another molecule in a higher or lower area is now bubbling into it, and the OZONE remains the constant volume? If there was a whole, then the solar radiation is poking through in a few spots, spots one could expect the change? Or is this region of the atmosphere stagnant? Regardless. I find it strange that you present it as evidence of Climate change when I have never seen it. However, I would like to ask. For how long have humans been tracking the temperature of the planet day per day, at Morning, Evening and Night? Is it not possible that climate change is not real? Is it possible that we have something of a pattern that is simply progressing from the current norm? If an animal was to run out of water. It would not evolve to its surroundings. It would die. If an animal no longer had the food it lived on, it would not adapt, it would die. If an animal cannot outrun it's predator, it does not learn from the situation. It dies. If an animal did not pass on it's knowledge, the youth does not attain it, and thus science does not take place: perpetual primitive instincts. Clearly, and this is a short list of distinct reasons Evolution is not real, Animals would not evolve and adapt to their environment. The entire eco-zone would collapse. The end. But have I seen an animal face extinction do to climate change? Or do I feel that they are threatened by a few degree change? NO. Polar bears will move, and use new hunting tactics, because they are PolarBears, and they have God given talents they ill implement to live in his world. Fish? No fish lives in water that does not fluxuate in temperature every day, Do I think the water will kill them if it gets warmer? NO. DO I believe in Climate change, YES. But do I think that it IS real. No, I can't put faith in that statement. Do I think it is important? Of course. BUt I am the guy who hates every person who cuts grass with non-renewable resources with a vengeance. I hate planes. I hate cities. I hate cars. I hate Burning the Petrolium I think our Race will need in the future to face new technological heights with prestige - when we can use Ethonal. BUT, did we Make the temperature change? SHOW ME, SHOW ME, the Ozone and maybe I'll accept Climate change. Until then. You have no case. If you wanna help climate change, You need to attack the against that destroy he earth, not raise hysteria. I don't say I want to kill every atheist on the planet. I say, I am sure they deserve to be dead. Thank God atheism is the self-destroyer ~does the dirty work for me, and when shitt gets deep, excuses the necessary course of action (purging rapists, home invaders, perverts, corrupt politicians & tyrants, and indulgent, bigoted doushbags and the whores who sponsor them). Can you prove Climate change? NO. The fact is the evidence hasn't been studied long enough and there are too many contributing factors. Would I encourage all actions necessary to pervade it? Of course. By default those actions are God fearing/loving.