args

CON

• CON

  OBSERVATION: Possession Burden Second, our team would...

  Show full argument

  Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

  Hello, my name is [NAME] and my team NEGATES today’s topic… RESOLVED: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Before we present our main arguments, we’d like provide a proper framework for today’s debate… DEFINITION: "Developed Countries" First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies. OBSERVATION: Possession Burden Second, our team would like to make an important observation about the topic, and point out that unlike most resolutions, the words "should" and "ought" don't appear. Today's debate is about possession, not aspiration. Our opponents have the burden of showing you where and how the "moral obligation" currently exists, not that is should or ought to exist. STANDARD: Utilitarianism Third and finally, the standard of today's debate, the most important issue in this round, should be utilitarianism. Today's debate revolves around the moral obligations that the wealthiest countries have to the entire world. Unlike our opponents, we don't believe that some countries should do some good, but rather, that the greatest countries, should do the greatest good, for the greatest numbers. With all of that said, we have 3 arguments... CONTENTION 1: Cannot Predict + No Impact Our first main argument is that climate change cannot be accurately predicted, and that the impacts are greatly exaggerated. An article by Dr. Gregory Young, a neuroscientist and physicist from Oxford University, points out that the climate "is such an extraordinarily difficult dynamic system" and most climate change prediction models are inaccurate and incomplete. For instance, models cited by the UN's IPCC leave out extraordinarily important variables, such as "solar activity, water vapor... major ocean currents" etc. The article goes on to point out that the UN's 2007 estimates had a "500%-2,000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature." The article ends by pointing out that out of 539 published papers on climate change during that time, none detailed catastrophic climate change due to man. The impact is simple: countries can't be obligated to mitigate a problem they can't quantify and predict, nor should they be obligated to mitigate a problem that the scientific community hasn't identified as serious. CONTENTION 2: No Obligation exists Our second main argument is that no obligation exists, or can exist. There is only one real legally binding agreement between most of the developed countries of the world when it comes to combating climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire. The Moscow Times recently reported that Russia has joined fellow developed powers Canada and Japan in refusing to renew. This is because the U.S. and China refuse to sign-on, who combined contribute 40% of global CO2 emissions. The IPS News Agency also recently reported that the EU disagrees with the current version of the Kyoto Protocol being discussed. There are several impacts here... If a moral obligation truly existed, these developed countries would most likely sign off on an agreement such as the Kyoto Protocol. These countries have chosen to ignore Kyoto, thus they have no obligation. Even if a country believed they had an obligation, Russia's stance points to the fact that action without the participation of large developed countries such as the U.S. is meaningless. Thus, developed countries have no means of mitigating even if they wanted to, and obligation cannot exist without means in the first place. CONTENTION 3: Mitigating Climate Change Kills By Letting Die (Opportunity Cost) Our third main argument is that mitigating climate change kills by letting die. Like real policymakers, we must realize there are opportunity costs to any action a government takes, and the opportunity cost of mitigating climate change, is death. Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School explains... Global warming is by no means our main environmental threat. ... ... for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation... By focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realize that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly as a result – because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations. In a different article, Mr. Lomborg details how just $75 billion, if spent wisely, could positively impact billions of lives. This is in stark contrast to the roughly $500 billion per year that the World Economic Forum estimates it would cause to adequately mitigate climate change, with an article in The Times pointing out that even if we capped CO2 emissions at present levels for about the next 100 years, we'd only see an 18% overall reduction in CO2. The impact is clear. Developed countries don't have a moral obligation to let people die today in order to build windmills tomorrow.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Developed-Countries-have-a-Moral-Obligation-to-Mitigate-the-Effects-of-Climate-Change./3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.41

    climate: 16.01

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

    premises: 8.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)

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

    change: 10.40

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

    premises: 4.26 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.65)

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

  You wouldn"t trust the computer you are typing on because...

  Show full argument

  Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

  Outline I. Scientific consensus II. Existential threat III. Co2 main driver IV. Conclusion V. Links I. Climate change scientific consensus A scientific consensus exists on the human-caused global warming proven by the seven studies above. Oreskes 2004, Doran 2009, Anderegg 2010, Cook 2013, Verheggen 2014, Stenhouse 2014, And Carlton 2015. This is important because scientists use evidence and logic to prove their point. These are experts in the field, Climate change scientists. Think of it similar to a group of experts in another field, Eye doctors, If 97% of eye doctors agreed that a certain disease of the eye existed you would believe them. We trust experts everyday from car mechanics, Dentists, Doctors, Home repair, Electricians, Heating, Air conditioning, Etc. Without this trust in experts society would slow down dramatically. Imagine for a second if you didn"t trust car manufacturers and all the parts associated with a car at all. Tire specialists, Brakes, Lights, Transmission, Engine, And many more. You would have to not use a car, Or be able to build and repair your own car from scratch. When I go to the car mechanic I trust to an extent that the car will be safe, Now if the mechanic overcharges me $3 I don"t worry too much. Now take that same mistrust and start applying to all experts. You wouldn"t trust the computer you are typing on because it was built by experts. Even if you assembled the computer yourself, I doubt you truly built it from scratch, Creating all those wires and microchips. You would have to grow all your own food. Build your own house. Yet, Who would you trust to build your own house? Imagine trying to learn how to build your own house and car, While growing all your own food. Would probably take decades if not more. That is assume you live and don"t electrocute yourself. It just is not feasible to mistrust all experts. Therefore, We should have a reasonable trust of experts, Including the experts and scientific consensus on climate change. II. Existential threat Climate change is an existential threat. As seen by the livescience link humanity will be doomed by 2050 if we ignore climate change for the next thirty years. [0] Large portions of Earth will be inhabitable which will lead to unrest and possibly war. This means climate change could cause the extinction of the human race. III. Co2 main driver CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change. "While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, The unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet"s climate now and in the years to come. "[1] This means humans are causing climate change. If we simply switch to sustainable energy sources we can dramatically lower CO2 emissions. Electric cars, Solar power, Nuclear power, Wind power, And even storing the carbon underground in a technique called carbon capture. [2] IV. Conclusion I have met my burden of proof by proving what I promised I would prove. Climate change is here now killing 150, 000 people annually according to the World Health Organization. [3]. This will only get worse with time. Think of a problem that gets worse with time as you ignore it. An infection that if caught early can be easily treated, That gets more and more difficult and expensive as time wears on. Or a mechanical problem with your car, Like a slightly flat tire from a nail that gets worse and worse. If you fixed it right away it might cost $30 to fix the tire. Longer, It takes $100 to replace the tire. If you drive on a flat long enough you damage other parts of the car, Costing more. Acting now will only cost $300 billion [4], But if we wait more people will die more species will go extinct and we will have to spend at least the $300 billion anyways. Climate change is solvable, But only if we are willing to spend the money soon. V. Links The links aren't working right now, Understand I am having technical difficulty.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-and-global-warming-are-both-total-nonsense-and-drivel-concepts./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.41

    climate: 16.01

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

    premises: 8.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)

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

    change: 10.39

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

    premises: 4.26 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.65)

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

  2. ... [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

  Show full argument

  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 "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...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Developed-Countries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.39

    climate: 16.00

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

    premises: 8.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)

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

    change: 10.39

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

    premises: 4.26 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.65)

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

  I do agree it is a proven fact, but to indefinitely say...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is man caused

  I look forward to this. Let's get something clear. I am not arguing against global warming. I do agree it is a proven fact, but to indefinitely say it was 'man-caused'? Wrong. To avoid confusion, my position is this: The lack of consensus among public and scientists, lack of funding, the failure to account for other measures, and for the opponents arguments I have yet to credit, global warming cannot be deep-seated to only the actions of mankind. My opponent is insistent on using NASA as his source, so I hope James Henson, former NASA scientist, can explain himself when he says "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that I do agree it is a proven fact, but to indefinitely say it was 'man-caused'? Wrong. To avoid confusion, my position is this: The lack of consensus among public and scientists, lack of funding, the failure to account for other measures, and for the opponents arguments I have yet to credit, global warming cannot be deep-seated to only the actions of mankind. My opponent is insistent on using NASA as his source, so I hope James Henson, former NASA scientist, can explain himself when he says "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought" [1] [1] http://www.giss.nasa.gov... I wish you the best of luck as well.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-man-caused/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.37

    climate: 17.20

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

    premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

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

    change: 9.17

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

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

  The climate has a cycle where ice age is the last stage...

  Show full argument

  Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

  Enviomentalism is a religion not climate change. We do not have to live eternally to see the effects of global warming. Of course we can not predict the outcome of the global warming other than we know it has happened frequently in the past. The climate has a cycle where ice age is the last stage (or the first depending on how you put it). Global warming follows the average temperature of the earth. This does not mean that all over the world it will get hotter. Global warming does not only result in warmer temperatures, but also in more violent storms, more violent earthquakes etc. We can prove climate change by just looking at pictures of glaciers now and 50 years ago (http://nsidc.org...).

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Models-of-Climate-Change-and-weather-forcasts-are-equally-wrong-most-often./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.29

    climate: 16.15

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

    premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)

    change: 10.14

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

    premises: 4.02 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.56)

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

  Recycled paper is artificially supported by the...

  Show full argument

  Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

  Recycled paper is artificially supported by the government. When this source of paper competes with paper that comes from trees, it pushes the demand for tree farming down. To compensate, tree farmers have to lower prices. This lowers profits margins, and as such, firms leave the industry. Land that was once used to cultivate trees is now turned into farming something else or sold to real estate developers. Hence, there are less trees, all other things being equal, and if trees are important for regulating carbon dioxide, then recycling paper is bad for fighting climate change. If you have any thoughts or just like to argue for the sake of arguing, let me know.

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

    BM25 score: 26.27

    climate: 15.56

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

    premises: 6.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.31)

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

    change: 10.71

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

    premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)

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

  Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate...

  Show full argument

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

  Thank you for your reminder that I have not given a single evidence that goes against your case. To fight against a popular belief, the odds have been against me from the beginning. You have certainly won if this was a popularity contest. What I want to say in my previous argument was that you have not put matters into perspective. Here are my facts which I hope can put matters into perspective: A)Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today, researchers say, and new techniques for estimating the amount of carbon dioxide on prehistoric Earth may help scientists predict how Earth's climate may change in the future B) CO2 is not the only driver to climate change; atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. C) The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere " the primary driver of recent climate change " has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. D) Solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined effect of sun and CO2 matches well with climate. E) I hope you can agree that the Sun is an independent system of the Earth. Therefore, whatever we do on earth do not affect the sun's activities. My Analysis of the situation: [A] means that the earth is capable of sustaining life and handling CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have today. [B] & [C] support the CO2 level is 10 times more than now prior to the dinosaurs, which roughly supports [A] [D] supports that it is the combined effect of sun and CO2 that contributes to the climate change. You can see that even if we increase our current output, it would take a long time to create CO2 level that is 5 times more than what we have now. Even at that level, earth can sustain life like dinosaurs. Therefore, human activity does contribute to climate change in the time scale of a 100 year, but to put in into perspective, over the time scale that date back to the beginning of life, human contributed CO2 level doesn"t affect life all that much. The sun would probably be a greater contributing factor than us human. Of course, with that said, even if we are not the major contributing factor, it is always our responsibilities to do less harm to others and to the nature" even though the sun would have killed us anyway in the end.

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

    BM25 score: 26.26

    climate: 15.98

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

    premises: 8.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)

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

    change: 10.29

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

    premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)

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

  GLOBAL COOLING More ice= colder tempartures, if warmer...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. THE MATH If 3.225% of CO2 emmissions are man-made, and 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, then man made global warming cxan only alter the global temparture by 0.000013%. In addition to this, CO2 is actually a very weak greenhouse gass. In fact, doubling the CO2 composition of the atmosphere would only increase the temparture by 0.6 degrees. {1} FEEDBACKS The theory was that an increase in the CO2 composition of the atmosphere increased, and if this increased the global temparture, then the ammoun of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase, which would reduce the global temparture as water vapor, or clouds, reflect sunlight back into outerspace. This is actually demonstrable, if it is raining outside, is the air colder or warmer? Colder, of course, whilst, if this theory of possitive feedbacks were true, the temparture should increase when it is raining outside. Water vapor reflects sunlight, and every degree of heat on this plaet comes from the sun, directly or indirectly. In addition to this, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes as its composition of a given atmosphere increases. {2} THE TREND As I said before, we are in the middle of a natural trend where the global temparture has been increasing, my opponent claims that climate change is still man made because 'there is no evience this trend will decrease,' but that's just nonsense, the global temparture has been rising since before man made CO2 emmissions. The temparture has been rising since 1600. GLOBAL COOLING More ice= colder tempartures, if warmer tempartures created more ice, then people would put ice cubes in their oven to freeze them, not their freezer. This is just common sense- if Antartic Sea ice grows,m this means that the temparture has declined, claiming that tempartures have declined because of global warming is just completely absurd. My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. Fact is, the global temparture is cooling because the sun has cycles of higher activity and warmer activity, creating natural global warming , which is now coming to an end as solar activity is declining. {3} {1}.http://notrickszone.com... {2}. https://wattsupwiththat.com... {3}. http://isthereglobalcooling.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.26

    climate: 15.09

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

    premises: 3.73 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 11.16

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

    premises: 2.00 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

  I don’t see any voting penalties would be just, however I believe his case is irrelevant due to this. To make it relevant, though, he can re-post it next round or he can totally change his case to accommodate the debate. In any case, no voting penalties should occur. Just the usual “its irrelevant, post it next round” would be a more just punishment. Correlations It is important to note in statistics correlations occur, but this does not mean causation is occurring. Everyone in the climate agrees: there is a CO2 correlation involved with climate. The question is how strong it is, and if other correlations exist. Now, the correlation of CO2 and climate is not considered “good”. Understanding correlations for the argument is not very complicated. A 1.0 correlation (r=1) is a perfect correlation; this would make a good case for causation. A 0.9 correlation (r=0.9_ would be considered a “good” correlation. 0.5 (r=0.5) would be considered a “fair” correlation. And something above .5 means something can have a large effect or a visual one on climate, though something in the .7-1.0 range would be ideal. 0.25 (r=0.25) is a poor correlation. And 0 (or negative) is no match at all. So, what is the CO2 correlation? Not surprisingly, it is under the .5 marks. But if CO2 was the main driver of climate, it should have a fairly high correlation, shouldn’t it? It’s impossible for something to have a causation effect if it has no correlation. But not only must the CO2 correlation be examined, but so should other factors (PDO + AMO, and the sun). Alarmist believers (believe CO2 warming occurs) usually cite Maua Loa as a main CO2 source as it shows large increases in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Ice core data also shows CO2 count is rising. When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong. Correlations for other factors, though, seem a lot more promising. The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much better correlation then CO2. Its correlation to surface temperatures is relatively strong, .57 (r = 0.57). This means the correlation is rated between “fair” and “good”. The correlation between the two main ocean currents, PDO and AMO, is particularly striking. The correlation is .83, the paper argues the correlation is in the “good” range, showing promise for this factor in the modern warming. It also shows its R2 is stronger then the CO2 correlation by a factor of almost two. Te scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). IF CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade? Supporting references: [1][2] Why its unlikely human CO2 causes global warming I am not doubting CO2 can cause warming, as it is part of the greenhouse effect, I doubt, however, whether or not human caused CO2 can have a significant effect. So here are a few facts, which are not in dispute. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is relatively small, it is a trace gas, and it is under one percent. The atmospheric CO2 is about 388 ppm, now slightly higher. Now, the amount of that CO2 that is human causes it also very small, it is under 5%. The number of 5% is always changing it is usually less. So, lets do the math. CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere; lets say humans create 4% of that (a valid estimate) that means 0.0016% of the atmosphere is human created CO2. To simplify the numbers, that’s 1.6 parts per 100,000. Imagine a building with 100,000 people in it emitting heat making it really hot in there, and people claim those 1.6 people are causing the temperature hike. They kick them out of the building. What effect would it have? It would be immeasurable [3]. Does it sound logical 1.6 parts per 100,000 would cause global warming? Other factors There are many other factors, two already discussed is Solar and the PDO/AMO ocean currents, and these are the most discussed. Others discussed are notably cosmic rays. Research on cosmic rays makes the most interesting point, though: our galaxy. Yes, our galaxy might be why the thermometer is rising, that is why the IPCC is screaming. Though they ignore this theory… anyway, our position in the galaxy might be the reason we are warming up. Our earth is on the edge of our galaxy – it’s a suburb – and every 225 million years it circles around and makes one “cosmic year”. Our galaxy has many stars that come out of the sides like scythes. It’s like a ninja throwing star. Every 135 years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy; it then receives unusually large amounts of cosmic rays bombarding us. Less cosmic rays, more heating less cooling. Likewise, more rays more cooling (they cause clouds). We are currently in an area with fewer rays, meaning we are obviously going to face large amounts of warming [3]. Another convincing theory is the 1,500-year solar cycle mainly pushed by S. Fred Singer. Though other studies prove the effect. One study argued the 1,500-year cycle (+/- 500 years) did indeed exist, and it was very possible that this could be the cause of recent rapid climate change, and the IPCC overlooking the theory is naïve. In other words, significant evidence proves the point and it is a convincing theory for natural caused global warming [4]. And as I am on room constraint I will have one more factor I look at: PDO + AMO possibilities. As proven earlier, there is already a strong case for this as it has a 0.83 R correlation. The paper earlier argued there was a strong correlation between ocean currents and global temperatures, and that it should be a candidate for the cause of climate change. Anthony Watts provides a few graphs for us, also: [Without regressions] [with regressions] http://wattsupwiththat.com... Conclusion: Natural factors, not human CO2, causes [current] warming. And it is highly unlikely the minute amount of human emisions is causing the warming we currently face. Sources: [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [3] MacRae, Paul. “ False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears.” Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. [4] Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change” National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 8, pp. 3814-3819, (April 2000)

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.17

    climate: 16.33

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

    premises: 7.04 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.47)

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

    change: 9.84

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

    premises: 2.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to...

  Show full argument

  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.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Developed-Countries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 26.11

    climate: 15.83

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

    premises: 7.93 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)

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

    change: 10.28

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

    premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)

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