Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased...

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

    Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.

  • PRO

    Thus, It is very unlikely that you will hear any...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    CO2 1. CO2 is an odourless and colourless gas. It has properties similar to glass, In that it can reflect some heat radiation. CO2 is also limited in its reflection of radiation in the same manner that glass is limited. Like glass, Is ceases to reflect heat radiation after it reaches its saturation point. In the case of glass - glass which is 2 feet thick will retain or reflect the same amount of heat that which a 1/4 inch glass will reflect. In the case of CO2, Will reach it's saturation point at around 80 parts/ million. Thereafter, CO2 will not reflect any further heat radiation. Therefore, The alarmists nincompoops who keep telling us to not to burn coal so as to avoid increasing the CO2 don't know or understand what the properties of CO2 really are. The main arguments about the cause of global warming concern CO2 as being the main culprit. Yet, The real science doesn't agree with this knee jerk type layman science that we hear from the media. My opponent will say that thousands of scientists agree with climate change principles. This is only because their careers depend on it. It they disagreed with climate change they would find themselves being black listed and unemployed. Thus, It is very unlikely that you will hear any scientist disagree with climate change. 2. Mass relationship with human body and machine weight, Verses Earth size and weight. If you compare the mass and weight of the Earth and compare that mass with the total mass and weight of humans and their machines you will find that the differential ratio is trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions to one. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that humans give out it will always be totally insignificant in relation to the size and mass of the Earth. The laws of physics and heat dissipation in relation to mass tell us that humans just can't affect the global climate of the Earth because humans are way too insignificant and small in relation to the size of the Earth. To put this into the correct perspective - humanity represents 3 grains of sand on a beach while the Earth represents the remainder of the beach. Thus, It doesn't matter how hot those 3 grains of sand get because they are never going to make the rest of the beach any hotter. 3. Corona virus, Climate change, World War I, World War II, Spanish flu, Holes in the ozone layer, Sars, BSE, Influenza, Ebola, Polio, Zika, HIV, Hong Kong flu, Dengue fever and swine flu. These are all propaganda exercises to make money out of gullible fools. There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. The world did not enter a new human caused ice age in the 1970's as predicted by all the world governments. The two world wars were securing oil in Iraq and not about freedom. Ebola, BSE, Zika and Polio are about pesticides and are not about viruses. Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.27
      climate: 16.39
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.49)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 10.88
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.55 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • PRO

    The Ghink Chronicle. ... Each $7 spent on basic family...

    Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering

    Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.25
      climate: 16.20
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    R2 rebuttals "I would like to thank my opponent for the...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    R2 rebuttals "I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue." YatesUni Agreed. I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim. "Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved. Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences. Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim. "Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved. Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences. Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global climate change. People in the middle east died in summer of 2015 due to unprecedented heat waves. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. Global climate change is real and a threat. Thanks for the debate. Sources 1. http://www.greenpeace.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.24
      climate: 16.19
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 11.05
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    While touring areas of California ravaged by a historic...

    In drought-ravaged California, Obama sounds alarm on climate change

    While touring areas of California ravaged by a historic drought, President Obama on Friday sounded an ominous warning and said that even if the federal government takes meaningful action to combat climate change, much of the damage already has been done. “Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change, this trend is going to get worse, and the hard truth is even if we do take action on climate change, carbon pollution has built up in our atm

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/obama-california-drought-affects-us-all
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.22
      climate: 16.48
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 10.74
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • PRO

    A vocal advocate for taking action on climate change,...

    Jay Inslee launches 2020 presidential bid with focus on climate change

    Jay Inslee, the Democratic governor of Washington, has announced he is running for president, declaring himself the “only candidate who will make defeating climate change our nation’s number one priority”. A vocal advocate for taking action on climate change, Inslee used his entrance into the race to sound the alarm on what he called “the most urgent challenge of our time”. “We’re the first generation to feel the sting of climate change,” he said in a video announcing his launch. “And we’re the last who can do something about it.”...

  • PRO

    Weather forecasts are often wrong, and the science of the...

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

    Climate change is a religion, as we will not be alive to see the truth of the predictions. Weather forecasts are often wrong, and the science of the immediate future of a local climate should be more easily predictable. Climate change will happen, the direction, warming or cooling, is unpredictable. The true path of a storm is unpredictable. Diblasio is a fear monger along the lines of his political god, Gore.

  • PRO

    The Obama administration fueled its push for energy...

    Administration issues dire climate change report, amid regulatory push

    The Obama administration fueled its push for energy regulations with a massive new report Tuesday, linking climate change to extreme weather across the country and warning of more climate disruption if the nation doesn't change its ways.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/white-house-climate-change-report
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.07
      climate: 16.38
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 10.69
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
  • PRO

    Contention I: "The economic impact of environmental...

    Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    Contention I: "The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries." Pro makes several highly unsupported conjectures in his C1. The main point is that government attempts to curb the effects of global warming would have negative effects on the economy. Among his conjectures include the arguments that EPA regulations would cause "a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods" as well as "result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars". Now besides the fact that Pro has neglected to source or substantiate his claims, his point would still fall moot if the effects of global climate change will be worse than the effects of environmental regulations. And scientific consensus supports this position, including the position of the European Academy of Science and Arts[1], the American Association for the Advancement of Science[2], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[3], among several other scientific organizations. Contention II: "The Earth"s climate is always changing." This contention attempts to disprove the existence of man-made global climate change. There are a few problems with this point though. First, even if we were to concede that global climate change isn't man-made, that wouldn't change the existence of moral obligation on those able to do so if we take a utilitarian perspective i.e., global climate change could still pose a grave threat to humanity, thus provoking obligation to those who have the means to mitigate such effects. The second problem with this point is the fact that Pro has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims. He claims that "Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background." What an incredible claim, considering "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."[4] The point is further corroborated by further studies, all available in Source 1. Contention III: "There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities." Pro's third and final contention rests on his conception of nations as non-moral entities. He makes two sub-points in regards to this contention: (a) he argues that a nation exists separately from the people that make them up and (b) with his assuming of ethical relativism in a societal context. I contend that neither of these points hold weight and that Pro is mistaken in his existential characterization of nations. (a) Pro's first mistake in his point is that he conceives nations as something distinct and separate from their individual parts i.e., their citizens. But try to conceive of a nation without citizens. It wouldn't exist. Nations only exist because a group of people come together to organize society. (b) Pro's second mistake lies in his application of ethical relativism. Even if we admit that morals are relative to individuals, Pro's point still fails in that he proves too much. For instance, if morals can only apply to people and not collective entities (assuming such things even exist), then we also can't apply moral criticism to any other collective entities, including corporations, interest groups, or even family households. The only way to overcome this obstacle is to dissolve the existence of collective entities or more than the sum of their parts. We can't apply moral duties to a nation, but we can apply those criticisms to the individual people who make them up. ===Sources=== [1] http://www.euro-acad.eu...; [2] http://www.aaas.org...; [3] http://www.grida.no...; [4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

  • PRO

    Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". ... June 23, 2009:...

    Mars reveals more to scientists about climate change

    Buzz Aldrin. "Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". CNN. June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Mission_to_the_Moon_or_Mars%3F
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.06
      climate: 16.02
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.90 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.50)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.50)

CON

  • CON

    But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help...

    Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

    Hello, I thank you for going for this topic a go and giving an in-depth analysis of the topic given Before I go point by point, I will re-crystalize my case for better understanding. Let us go to the motion. By definition "Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change" now the key words here is "have to" which is morally obligated to help these undeveloped countries . Now why I oppose this motion is that why are developed countries obligated to help underdeveloped countries while they are both fighting the same climate change with the same causes. I agree that we have to change our economic world for better chances to fight climate change, but most countries can"t afford the technology as you and I said. But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help them is for the following reasons: (I won"t regurgitate my old points but I"ll brush on them briefly) As I said the foreign aid given to these undeveloped countries have been improving but it is not improving the country that is receiving it therefore the foreign aid will go to waste even if they go to the right places since people can properly manage the foreign aid on their own. Secondly, as I said more developed countries cannot support the underdeveloped countries in a bigger scale since they have bigger things to deal with, while the underdeveloped countries have smaller problems compared to developed countries. But if you consider the underdeveloped countries problems they are pretty huge in their perception like the poverty in the Philippines, it"s a small country but it"s a big problem over there so just like developed countries have big problems, underdeveloped countries have bigger problems since they are most probably poor while facing a problem like climate change that is a very expensive problem that is draining their economy. So these countries rely on foreign aid since they are already in a bad position in their economy and instead of money going to the fight of climate change it"s now going to different places instead. Therefore while developed countries can help them, they shouldn"t be obligated to the underdeveloped countries. It"s an obligation to the entire Earth to help preserve it. It is my responsibility, your responsibility and many others responsibility to help prevent it. That"s why I believe they shouldn"t be obligated to countries but to be obligated to the further future generations of humanity and to Mother Nature that helps humanity everyday. See you on the third round! (P.S. You have a great sense in the debate, I wish for greatness for you)

  • CON

    A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate...

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

    The issue you're running into here is simple, The Earth's climate is not a heat exchange model between humans and earth. It's a convection based heating and cooling cycle, Where the sun heats the landmass, And the landmass radiates heat back into the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature is a result of the atmosphere trapping radiated heat from the landmass. The primary means of atmospheric capture are the trace greenhouse gasses, Which has been experimentally confirmed numerous times. A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate model, Which simulates the entirety of the system in the atmosphere, Which is the primary concern, Rather then that of the entire planet, Which is not a concern. Current modeling shows that the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere results in quite heavy heating of the troposphere, In particular polar regions, Which increases albedo. Humans live in the atmosphere, Which has an extremely small amount of mass compared to the planet, And has, Since the industrial era, Recieved a spike from 280ppm, To 407ppm. Those 32, 000 year cycles? They had a A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate model, Which simulates the entirety of the system in the atmosphere, Which is the primary concern, Rather then that of the entire planet, Which is not a concern. Current modeling shows that the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere results in quite heavy heating of the troposphere, In particular polar regions, Which increases albedo. Humans live in the atmosphere, Which has an extremely small amount of mass compared to the planet, And has, Since the industrial era, Recieved a spike from 280ppm, To 407ppm. Those 32, 000 year cycles? They had a change of less then 120 ppm of CO2, And the change in solar irradiance is very slight. This can be found on the NASA website, If you want to chase sources. Milankovitch cycles and axis changes, Which you cite, Are currently in a recession, If they were to cause the changing climate, As you suggest, We would see a colder climate, Rather then a warmer one.

  • CON

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

  • CON

    Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    "Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate change

  • CON

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate change

  • CON

    States should contribute equally to combating climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    States should contribute equally to combating climate change.

  • CON

    So why aim the gun at us only? ... If we want to save...

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

    Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.

  • CON

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue. http://tinyurl.com... Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense. Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased. And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says. Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.98
      climate: 16.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 9.63
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    I stand by the points I raised in the first round and...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.95
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.60
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more...

    Climate change is real and caused by humans

    Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun"s rays heats the Earth"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It"s not our fault we breathe, it"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.89
      climate: 16.23
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 9.66
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.32 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)