Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewClimate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.
Climate change is very real, As proven by numerous studies, (Which I will provide if it becomes relevant), And it is largely our fault as a civilization, More importantly, Our carbon emissions. If we want to pave a good future (or at this rate, Any future at all) for the next generations, We need to act up about all this now.
Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists
"NASA data, which I cited in [6], shows there has been no global warming for 17 years." So how do we have two competing sources for what should be the same information? PRO [5] - IPCC CON [6] - NASA? If we look closely, CON's [6] doesn't actually reference NASA, it references wattsupwiththat.com. The wattsupwiththat article uses RSS data, not NASA data. RSS, or Remote Sensing Systems, does not measure temperatures using a thermometer, it takes readings of microwaves, as explained on its homepage http://www.remss.com...; The data demonstrates that microwaves are not "net heating" the earth, but CON and the wattsupwiththat article argue that the earth itself is not being warmed. When measured by thermometers throughout the globe, IPCC and NASA sources have shown that the earth clearly is being warmed. CON's [6] is a particularly ironic source in the context of this debate, during which CON has advocated sunspots as an alternative temperature explanation to CO2. CON argues that "decadal average" means that the meaning of "anomaly" is reset every decade. The IPCC actually addressed this concern by setting every decadal average relative to the same constant (in this case, "Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1961−1990."[7]). "My primary reference for the claim that that IPCC models cannot explain the 17 year lack of global warming is Tinsdale's book “Climate Models Fail” [7]." - CON The existence of a book title is not an argued debate point. If CON has read Tisdale's book, he should be able to explain and present what he learned in this debate. Otherwise, I should be having this debate with Bob Tisdale. "Tinsdale provides a book length comparison of IPCC model results showing that what actually happened in climate was outside of the error band of model predictions." - CON Which model predictions do CON and Tisdale speak of? Because when the IPCC compared model predictions to observations, the temperature observations were outside the 'natural forcings' band of model predictions, and well withing the 'natural and anthropogenic forcings' band of model predictions. This was part of what I presented in round 4. "Tinsdale also referenced the Mauritsen paper, which I linked in [7]" - CON CON [7] references Tinsdale, not Mauritsen. "Temperature was supposed to rise sharply after 2000, as the figure shows, but it did not. Models proved wrong cannot be relied upon for future predictions." Perhaps CON missed this: the blue shading is the natural, absence-of-man prediction; the pink shading is the natural + anthropogenic predictions; and the black line is the reading taken by the thermometers. The black line is consistent with the blue shading for the antarctic region, seems indecisive for the Southern Ocean, and correllates with the pink shading for the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and Antarctica. "Pro's initial contention was that vanishing Arctic sea ice proves that CO2 dominates climate." - CON PRO's initial contention was actually that temperature anomalies correspond to a rise in CO2 as predicted by the greenhouse effect, and demonstrated by sea ice temperature, sea ice mass, climate temperature, ocean temperature, and ocean PH. "Correlation does not prove causation." - CON PRO [3] http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> 20th century physics consisted of bombarding particles into each other and measuring the deviation of their paths. This was well-tested far beyond being a correlation argument, to the point that physicists predict photonic behavior with laser precision (literally). It is by this mechanism that greenhouse theory exists. It's not a correlation argument, it mathematically calculates that visible photons have no trouble passing through the earth's atmosphere to warm the surface, but upon bouncing back upwards and losing energy (increasing wavelength), are prone to be deflected back at the earth by greenhouse gases. This re-warms the earth. "Global warming is global, so it cannot be that Arctic ice measures warming but Antarctic ice does not." - CON They both measure warming, but remember - it's global, so we cannot use Antarctic ice to ignore temperature observations from the Arctic, North America, Europe, Asia, the North Pacific, the North Atlantic, Africa, the South Pacific, South America, the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean, Australia, and - yes - even the temperature readings of the Antarctic (as I pointed out in round 3, ice and temperature cannot have a linear relationship except at temperatures near freezing point - this is why 'absorption of energy' is more relevant than short term temperature). "In the last round, Pro changed his position and argued that total ice is important and not sea ice" - CON I argued that deuterium levels from the last ten thousand years were less relevant than energy readings from the last century. CON's narrative of my position is unrecognizable to me, so my most objective route at this point is to request of voters that they actually find the "PRO" arguments that correlate with the "CON" narrative before either agreeing or disagreeing with it - and vice versa. "total ice has been decreasing since the early 1800s, well before any claim of anthropogenic warming." - CON Deforestation has actually increased net CO2 emissions since before 1750 [9], http://zfacts.com...; /> but in negotiating this debate, CON chose "temperature anomalies from 1900 to 2200 are / will be predominantly anthropogenic" from a number of other possible Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists subtopics, so we'll have to save that discussion for another day. As I have explained at least three times in this debate, ice represents two out of seven continents to measure, and as CON has explained, this is a discussion about global temperature. "Pro claimed that melting land ice in Antarctica caused the increase in sea ice." - CON I discussed three measurements - temperature, volume, and area. These were ALL in regards to land ice in Antarctica. PRO Round 3: Both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are supposed to be far below freezing, and neither will commence a serious level of shrinking until they reach the melting temperature of water. As the top of the ice caps melt, the water runs down and is cooled by the ice below, slightly reducing or maintaining the total mass of the ice while possibly increasing the total area. However, it also increases the average temperatures of the Antarctic and Arctic. "Future CO2 levels are unknown" - CON Solar, volcanic, botanic, and other alleged hidden variables in century-measured climate change would have to accelerate hundreds of times over in the next two centuries if anthropogenic CO2 is to become a 'secondary' driver of climate anomalies. This can even be deduced from CON's use of geological data, which covers up to 600 million years at a time. Current physical predictions indicate that anthropogenic global warming will be steady and lingering for several centuries, and statistically comprehensive climate data corresponds to this theory. 9. http://zfacts.com...
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.
Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: opening arguments (Thou shall not refute current round) Round 3: refutation of opponent's Round 2 argument. Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire. Any sources used must be linked to directly. Linking to WWW.climate.com will not be considered quality sourcing unless you link DIRECTLY to a specific article within the webpage. (WWW.climate.com was just an example.) As Pro I shall argue as Resolved above. As Con (if you accept) you shall argue in support of man made global climate change.
Climate change is real.
Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got your silly theory?
Climate change is real.
If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?
Climate change is a fraud
Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
Climate Shift
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org...... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...... 3. http://www.nrdc.org...... 4. http://www.mfpp.org...... 5. http://www.edf.org...... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov......
What is your opinion on climate change
Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.
Climate Shift
I am confused by my opponents argument. He has taken the Con side and must disagree and disprove the resolution, but his argument is only in favor of the pro. I must assume that he is being sarcastic, but I am not sure. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...
Climate shift
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...
Climate Shift
Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I have to start this final round off with thanking who's made this argument much easier. Had then President-Elect Trump not terrified climate change scientists into archiving the data that they had kept away from the public this final round wouldn't be as climactic[16]. I'm surprised that my opponent didn't use the time to incorporate changes that were starting to come out just as I was wrapping up the previous round. On February 4th retired NOAA Scientist Dr. John Bates came forward damning NOAA for it's failure to Archive data like study used to refute the 'pause' argument for the Paris Agreement[19]. By the 5th it made it to the House Science Committee[18]. Thomas Karl has since admitted to failing archive the information before publication, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine, Jeremy Berg, where the study was published has said: "Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations. We will consider our options. It could include retracting that paper." [17] How can a study be published as Peer Reviewed when the study was never archived before publication so that fellow NOAA scientists or the public could review it? Blind Faith is you asking someone to believe you, and not providing a way to verify it. My opponent seems to be under the misconception that Figure 4 supports his argument. He better hope that Figure 4 is wrong because the high temperature in 2012 is that same as the high temperature in 1936. The clear trend from 1936 to 1980, or possible 1996, would mean that as we increased CO2 temperature dropped, but then reversed course after that. That would be a contradiction and refute the CO2 argument. Without the weighting, Figure 4 doesn't say anything for either argument. It's odd for my opponent to accuse me of cherry picking the evaporation data in his defense, but not in his rebuttal of my argument. Perhaps he knows he failed to refute my claim, and realized that data proves my claim beyond all doubt. In his mind, it has to be a fallacy, and he just happened to pick Cherry Picking without proof of Cherry Picking. In spite of the referenced source the GHCN dataset from NOAA. In spite of the publicly available source code. In spite of the Evaporation Data labeled, All Station, and Year Round stations he insists I must be cherry picking data. The only reason for the two sets is that some stations are seasonal resulting in some confusing output in the later years of the graph. Both are still in sync before 2005. Even given that I openly admitted that the Evaporation Set alone might just be too small since we only measure evaporation near lakes and reservoirs. That's why Figure 2 exists which collaborates the data in the evaporation data. He refuses to attack the GHCN dataset because doing so would throughout his entire argument since NOAA bases all their climate change argument on it. He refuses to attack the methodology because it is sound. He is left only with a Cherry Picked, false, unsubstantiated claim of Cherry Picking. Where is a dataset more inclusive than the GHCN? Where is his counter evidence showing what data I missed? In the ultimate sense of irony, my opponent and I already agree. He is just drowning in cognitive dissonance making him unwilling to look at the data for himself. Man-Made Global Warming is the only Man-Made Myth here today. Thank you, and I urge you to vote and share this debate. [16] http://www.cnn.com... [17] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [18] https://science.house.gov... [19] https://judithcurry.com...
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. There has been wonderful information and opinion shared by both sides and it has been enjoyable. That said, in all three of the rounds, I fail to see a direct connection between humans and global warming proven by my opponent. Without a direct connection, and surely without a direct cause, regulations are only going to funnel money from one big organization to another and not fix the problem. We cannot be expected to blindly throw money at a guess and hope things change. In addition to the lack of evidence directly linking global warming to humans, there is also no proof as to how these regulations will actually change anything in terms of climate. There have been numerous scare tactic comments followed by minimal solutions which may or may not fix a problem that may or may not exist. It has also not been shown to what extend regulations on the American people will have on the globe as a whole. In fact, the EPA have stated that if there is a 60% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050, the global temperature will be reduced by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. (http://www.heritage.org...) I can understand that any change in the right direction is a good thing but at what cost and for what result? This is nearly 100 years later and since the EPA has already admitted that they do not know how much of a role the environment plays on climate change, how many other factors could go in to altering these numbers. Also, the American economy is in a troubling time at the moment and a further burden on businesses will only increase the problem; all because there is a chance that the temperatures may reduce by .2 degrees in 85 years. This is simply too far fetched of a plan to cause enforcement of regulations. I continue to talk about these loose connections between global warming and humans because, even if my opponent may not personally agree, there are many well respected scientists who have not been involved in scandals stating that there is no link. In December of 2008, the US Senate Minority leader released a report which included 650 dissenting scientist refuting the EPA's Claims. As of April 2009, that number increased to over 700 scientist. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which the EPA relied heavily on in their conclusions only had 52 scientists; less than 1/13th of those opposed. (http://www.heritage.org...) While some try to sweep this decent under the rug in yet another scandalous act, there are some things which cannot be disputed. If the EPA has their way and is able to regulate CO2 output by the American people, it would be the most expansive and most expensive environmental regulation in history. In addition, it will let the EPA bypass the legislative process complete. In essence, the decisions of a few will drastically alter the lives of many; all for a change in the Earth's temperature too small to ever notice. (http://www.heritage.org...) The non profit group from the home state of my opponent, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have started a petition against the adoption of regulations on the American businesses and public in the name of global warming. They have had over 31,000 American scientists sign this petition stating they have reviewed the research literature and found no link between humans and global weather changes. (http://www.oism.org...) In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was discussed earlier having a direct link on the EPA's conclusions have failed to prove a link between humans and global warming. The IPCC actually states, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. The sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate process." (http://www.aproundtable.org...) So by their own admission, their researched is filled with errors and speculation. Over and over again, my opponent continually denies the the overwhelming data which shows there has yet to be a direct link proven between humans and global warming. If there was a direct link out there to be proven, why hasn't anyone done it yet; not just in America but across the world? A huge scandal took place involving the Climate Research Unit and it is simply dismissed by my opponent as he states, "I do not believe that it means anything". The EPA has explained they are uncertain as to the cause of global warming and how human involvement relates to climate change. My opponent responds by saying, "They're just not certain about how much humans contribute", as if that somehow makes it okay to impose regulations on Americans. If the EPA is uncertain as to what the human contributions are and if the EPA reports are under suspicion anyway, why would we put them in charge of regulating American businesses and lives? My opponent's defense to all this uncertainty around global warming and human cases of climate change is that, he wishes global warming did not exist, but it does. He continues to claim that, "The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans". But he has failed to show this overwhelming evidence and has moved from the EPA's 'unknown' significance of human involvement to his new statement claiming human involvement actually being 'significant'; an unsubstantiated leap to say the least. While I give my opponent credit for commenting on most of the scandals and scientific reports disproving his case, I simply cannot agree that global warming exists because he says so. Those who blindly support global warming caused by humans continually write off these problems in their data as 'minor red herrings' but fail to show the actual connection. This debate, as many others, has tried to turn the table on who has the burden of proof. The side believing global warming is caused by humans still needs to prove and show a direct link between the human involvement and in what capacity. But what we have here is my opponent claiming, personally, that it not only exists and is caused by humans but any data which disproves this claim should be dismissed as minor speed bumps. My opponent makes a remarkably embellishment of the facts as he claims, "The fact is, any data or theories opposing the idea of climate change absolutely pale in comparison to all of the evidence and conclusions that climate change is a very real problem with very real consequences and very real ways to prevent it. It is ignorant and irresponsible to deny that." Does my opponent really expect us to believe that he has reviewed all the information offered on both sides of this debate to such an extent that he can numerically calculate which side has more evidence? It is scary, to me, that people make such vast generalizations. It is also scary, to all of us, when those such as my opponent talk about human habits equating to death. These general speculations and scare tactics do not translate into fact as shown above. Without absolute proof that human change will alter climate, there is absolutely no need for government to step in and alter our economic strength and way of life. I thank my opponent for starting this topic and for a great debate!
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...
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thanks to my opponent for a neat and timely response. "1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation" Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1] As you can see, we cannot even decide whether it is right or wrong because we do not even know if global warming is real. Just look at [2]. "2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating." This debate about the moral obligation to mitigate, and they also created some mess and why do not they have the moral obligation to do it? "3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation." I am saying that all nations have the obligation (from round 1) and not just developed nations, but the topic says "developed nations". "2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business." I'll restate my argument before starting the rebuttals. It is: "The government does not need to take action. As oil prices rise due to it being scarcer, the people start to invest in alternate fuels." The main thing is not about oil companies losing business. "1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related." Yes, it is related to the mitigation of climate change, but not related to the moral obligation to mitigate it. "2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. " Well, terrorism is based partly on oil, but there are many other reasons, for example: race differences, religion differences, etc.; so removing oil does not necessarily prevent terrorism. "3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. " However, this is about the nations themselves, not individuals! My argument "The government does not have to take action" still stands. "Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention." I assume that by our first contention, you meant: "Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today"s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to 'adapt' to the effects of climate change.According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate." Adapt-To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation.[3] Mitigation: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate. [4] You only proved that we have a good reason to adapt, not we have a moral obligation to do so. Plus, this is another topic. Adapting and mitigating are two separate, but somewhat connected things, as I showed you. Moral obligation - (n.) an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.[1] And you only provided reasons, and not a consideration of right and wrong. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://debate.org... [3]http://www.answers.com... [4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.
Opponents arguments: We have a moral obligation to future generations. We as people have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change to our future generations. Our moral obligation is to lesson suffering for our children and their children and their children. Also climate change is man made so it is our job to mitigate it. Climate change is a small part natural but man has played a big part in increasing the effects. Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to mitigate the effects because they have played the biggest part in climate change and undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so. For those reasons you should vote pro. We don't have a moral obligation since we should be focusing on using less than a fifth of the money needed to mitigate the effects of climate change (500 billion dollars) to eliminate poverty and world hunger extend my arguments VOTE CON
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....
Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Quote: "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."-Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries: sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations "Moral obligation: an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong "Mitigate: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate "Effects: a change that is the result or consequence of an action or other cause "Climate change: is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. Contention 1: The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries. New regulations planned by the EPA could have detrimental effects to our economy " particularly causing a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods. The heart of the EPA"s regulation would be a backdoor national energy tax that will ultimately kill jobs, stop economic growth and raise the cost of energy, food and transportation. They would also double the current regulatory standard on farm dust that would make tilling a field, operating a feedlot or diving farm vehicles impossible - bringing the agriculture sector to a standstill. A representative from the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation said, "Farmers and their way of life and livelihood have never felt more challenged or threatened than they do today by the continuous onslaught of regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency... The cost they represent will impact the economy as a whole, and this committee should not be surprised when our economy contracts and jobs are lost to foreign competition." An MIT study conducted by Stephen M. Meyers clearly shows that increased environmental regulation burdens the economy, especially in times of economic downfall. So why then, would we want any more ridiculous red tape? An increase in environmental regulation would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars, nobody wants to see that. Contention 2: The Earth"s climate is always changing. If you talk to any credible climatologist, they will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background. The climate is always in a state of constant change and development. The Earth goes through natural periods of cooling and warming, that"s scientific fact. Would you blame the warming of the Earth after the last Ice Age on humans or man-made greenhouse gases? As with all the climate change nonsense, not a single claim can be substantiated as actual physical proof. Only assumptions and predictions made with manipulated computer models and deliberately corrupted data exist. Actual meteorological records and geophysical records destroy any credibility of everything ever said by these environmental groups. The real agenda of "global warming" has nothing to do with climate or weather but all to do with politics and the financial gain of those who stand to benefit from green investments. What better an investment could they have than one where the government forces the use of a green scheme idea or product on the public? In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man"made causes. Contention 3: There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities. On what grounds are so-called "developed countries" morally obligated to do anything? The simple fact is that there is no basis for this claim. Individuals, rather than government, determine morals. Government is not, and never has been where you should look for morals; you have that in your own heart and conscience; you teach that to your family. You cannot dictate what morals your neighbor has nor what morals your neighbor teaches his children. Make yourself an example with morals; that is all one can do. And certainly government has no place in that. The whole idea that a country would have a "moral obligation" is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism, that ethics and morals are relative to each Nation or even culture and that there is no standard ethical or moral policy that all nation-states ought to abide by.
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...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."-Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries: sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations "Moral obligation: an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong "Mitigate: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate "Effects: a change that is the result or consequence of an action or other cause "Climate change: is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. Contention 1: The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries. New regulations planned by the EPA could have detrimental effects to our economy " particularly causing a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods. The heart of the EPA"s regulation would be a backdoor national energy tax that will ultimately kill jobs, stop economic growth and raise the cost of energy, food and transportation. They would also double the current regulatory standard on farm dust that would make tilling a field, operating a feedlot or diving farm vehicles impossible - bringing the agriculture sector to a standstill. A representative from the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation said, "Farmers and their way of life and livelihood have never felt more challenged or threatened than they do today by the continuous onslaught of regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency... The cost they represent will impact the economy as a whole, and this committee should not be surprised when our economy contracts and jobs are lost to foreign competition." An MIT study conducted by Stephen M. Meyers clearly shows that increased environmental regulation burdens the economy, especially in times of economic downfall. So why then, would we want any more ridiculous red tape? An increase in environmental regulation would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars, nobody wants to see that. Contention 2: The Earth"s climate is always changing. If you talk to any credible climatologist, they will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background. The climate is always in a state of constant change and development. The Earth goes through natural periods of cooling and warming, that"s scientific fact. Would you blame the warming of the Earth after the last Ice Age on humans or man-made greenhouse gases? As with all the climate change nonsense, not a single claim can be substantiated as actual physical proof. Only assumptions and predictions made with manipulated computer models and deliberately corrupted data exist. Actual meteorological records and geophysical records destroy any credibility of everything ever said by these environmental groups. The real agenda of "global warming" has nothing to do with climate or weather but all to do with politics and the financial gain of those who stand to benefit from green investments. What better an investment could they have than one where the government forces the use of a green scheme idea or product on the public? In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man"made causes. Contention 3: There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities. On what grounds are so-called "developed countries" morally obligated to do anything? The simple fact is that there is no basis for this claim. Individuals, rather than government, determine morals. Government is not, and never has been where you should look for morals; you have that in your own heart and conscience; you teach that to your family. You cannot dictate what morals your neighbor has nor what morals your neighbor teaches his children. Make yourself an example with morals; that is all one can do. And certainly government has no place in that. The whole idea that a country would have a "moral obligation" is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism, that ethics and morals are relative to each Nation or even culture and that there is no standard ethical or moral policy that all nation-states ought to abide by.
