Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over...

    Climate change is both real and a serious issue

    My first source was just an example of the structure that should be used and is not part of my argument. You state that displacement will maintain the water levels. Water in its solid form is more dense than its liquid state. Therefore it takes up less space and by melting the ice caps the same amount of water would take up more room. Also there is a lot of the ice that is above sea level, the ice on top would melt and go into the ocean which increases the sea level. Get a graduated cylinder, fill it with water, and place a buoyant ball in. Measure the volume line of the cylinder, now push the ball entirely into the water and measure it again. You will notice that the volume line will increase. The same thing will happen with the ice melting into the ocean. You state that humans will raise the temperature by a couple of degrees. That has an incredible impact. In fact, that is what climate change believers are worried about. This couple of degrees will change the world and reduce the health of the biosphere.(http://www.motherjones.com...) The Industrial Revolution changed lives drastically, factories began to mass produce products, new tools allowed less farmers to create more food, and wealth inequality grew. This resulted in accelerated population growth and living condition improvements. A side effect was the demand for energy to power factories, trains, planes, ships, and to create electricity. Whether it was wood, coal, or oil, these energy sources when burned would release emissions that have been buried in the ground for millions of years. Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over 200 years we have increased the carbon footprint of the planet by 38%(1). This is increasing the global temperature which is resulting in: melting of the polar caps, ecosystem destruction, and is destroying our biosphere. Due to the excessive use of these energy sources we are also destroying the environment. Dumping trash and waste into the ocean and rivers of the world. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a dangerous cycle. Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and causes higher temperatures. Polar ice caps reflect huge amounts of sunlight, and because of the increased temperatures these caps are slowly melting away causing even more heat to stay in the Earth. Beneath the polar caps is home to millions of pounds of carbon dioxide that will be released furthering this cycle. This process is exponential and is almost impossible to restore back to its original state with current technology. With the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising, trillions of dollars in economies would be at jeopardy. Cities like New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, would be destroyed. These changes would also displace billions of people in the process(2). Life is very fragile for multi-celled organisms, a change in the organism's niche will wipe them out. This is because they are well adapted to the environment which makes them very dependent on it. Deserts are expanding, ocean reefs are disappearing, and forests are vanishing(3). These ecosystems are home to millions of different species and the rate of extinction is rising at an alarming rate(4). Food webs and season cycles are being disrupted which are incredibly important to the system. Temperature increases are affecting sea level and ocean temperature. This in turn is wrecking the ocean currents that deliver heat evenly and quickly all over the world as well as sustain billions of ocean organisms. Couldn't it be argued that those people against climate change are trying to further themselves. Oil and coal businesses would lose immense profits or go bankrupt if governments started to crack down heavily on the issue. Many government and educational sites are posting verifiable data on climate change.(1)http://climate.nasa.gov...(2)http://www.nationalgeographic.com...(3)https://www.epa.gov...(4)http://www.pbs.org... You have claimed that there was higher C02 concentrations during the Ordovician period and that flora and fauna was incredible. What soon followed suit was the largest mass extinction ever. The climate changed rapidly and the organisms that were best fit died off. This is why climate change is such a big deal. Yes, carbon emissions were much higher, however the suns solar output was incredibly low along with much larger ice caps to deflect more sunlight. In comparison, today we have a very high solar output and much smaller polar caps. Recent studies on the Ordovician period actually show that the carbon concentration was not as incredible as claimed (5). You brought in that people used to believe the world was flat. That is a common myth(6). The Earth is an oval and there are immense amounts of evidence to prove it. Yet people today still believe the Earth is flat(7). (5) https://skepticalscience.com... (6)https://en.wikipedia.org...# (7)https://theflatearthsociety.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-both-real-and-a-serious-issue/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.56
      climate: 15.58
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.36 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)
      change: 10.98
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • PRO

    This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world....

    Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

    To consider this resolution and evaluate both possible solutions a few things must be established. Firstly, the main value that both sides are defending is the value of human life. The common goal is saving the most possible humans. The pro side will be arguing that preparation is fundamental and necessary to achieve this while the con should be arguing that reducing the damage to the environment is enough. Before I lay out my arguments I would like to make one clarification: the pro side is not arguing that prevention is the ultimate solution. Instead, we will prove that it should be the immediate and necessary action. These are our reasons: 1. We will suffer the consequences of climate change. (It will rise above 2 C). The vast majority of scientists agree that a rise in the average temperature of the world above 2 degrees Celsius from before industrial levels will be extremely catastrophic to the human population. This is a very alarming fact because we have already risen 1 degree above these industrial levels, and from the current course we have set our industries on, it is virtually impossible to prevent going above 2 C. This means we WILL deal with the catastrophic damage of climate change! Now the question is what is the best solution to deal with these consequences such as extreme droughts, flooding, harsh storms, etc.? The solution proposed by the the opposition is completely inviable since switching to green energy or any other measure will not save the lives of the people whose house was washed away by floods or who do not have water to drink. I"m from Brazil and recently we have had the worst drought in 50 years. This made a many people realize the importance of the environment and start taking actions to help it, yet that did not solve the immediate problem. People still did not have water to live! Preparation was necessary and would have remediated the issue. This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world. We need to be prepared to face what is coming, and that is why it should be our main goal. 2. Not all nations will agree on preventing climate change; therefore, nations that do not prepare for its effects will be harmed. One example of this is China, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which has recently stated that it would not maintain its emission control pledges. As a result of that, it is inevitable that significant damage will occur due to climate change. It is nearly impossible to force countries like this to comply with climate change prevention measures; therefore, it would be more beneficial for the other nations to prepare themselves to the effects of climate change rather than spending trillions on trying to prevent it in vain. How can you ask a small country like the Maldives to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions when the sea is rising and destroying their cities? Even if they did agree to take these measures, because other countries like China don"t, the seas will continue to rise. Their main concern currently should be to prepare with the effects of this rise. 3. It would be illogical for a few countries to make the change to green technology because of the magnitude of capital investment in the oil & gas industry. The oil & gas industry is a billion dollar industry. Only in the time period 2009-13 more than 3000 billion dollars were invested in the oil & gas industry. It is needless to point out the huge negative effects the adoption of green technology would mean for the world economy. The results would be catastrophic and there would be no turning back. Thousands of people would lose their jobs and years of technological developments in the industry would be wasted. It would cost 44 trillion dollars to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. The cost of this is unviable. There are no investors willing to spend that much money on green technology. Logically, the costs would be split. However, given the profits the oil industry brings only a crazy person would spend on green technology. This once again demonstrates how prevention is completely impossible in our world and preparation is the best immediate solution. 4. If climate change prevention does not work, then mankind would have wasted all of its resources into something futile, and we would not be able to survive the effects of climate change. In order to change the ways of mankind now, we would have to change so many habits that have been ingrained in our society for decades, since the discovery of oil. How we run our factories, how we trade, change all of the packaging on foods, beauty products, even clothing. It is impossible to impede the productions of these items, since nowadays fossil fuels are present all around us. The keyboard you are typing on is made of plastic for example, the case around your phone is plastic as well. It is incoherent to assume that we can slow this process now, so instead of spending trillions on prevention methods that we are not certain can work (they haven"t until now), we must start thinking about the future, and preparing for the worst that can come. One of the largest mistakes that humanity makes is to begin something and not look deep enough into the future to know how to control that something. This is not a fatalistic view, it is a cautious one. For all these reasons, we are arguing that the preparation to deal with climate change should currently be valued above preventing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arguing that suddenly changing the path we are on will happen and is viable is thinking of a utopian world. It is a completely inviable solution. The main goal of nations should be to prepare, and later, when the mentality concerning climate change starts to shift, prevention can be discussed.

  • PRO

    President Obama said on Tuesday that the United States...

    Obama Defends Presence at Climate Change Talks While Syria War Rages

    President Obama said on Tuesday that the United States was obligated to undertake climate talks in the midst of a war in Syria “because this one trend, climate change, affects all trends.”

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/obama-paris-press-conference
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.54
      climate: 16.50
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.68 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.81)
      sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)
      change: 10.05
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.83)
  • PRO

    Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a...

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

    Thanks for accepting this debate I hope we have a great debate! Evidence is only to be presented when asked for Last speeches, no new evidence is to be presented 1st speech- opening 2nd- rebuttals 3rd- more rebuttals 4th- summary 5th- Closing statement Good luck! PRO- Case Definitions 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. Standard- The standard of today"s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate. 1. Alternative- Adaptation 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. 2. Economy If developed countries mitigate the effects of climate change, the economy will grow. According to the UN, Renewable energy generates more jobs than fossil fuels. Worldwide, jobs in renewable energy industries exceeded 35 million in 2010. $211 billion were invested in the renewable industries in 2010. Obviously, the renewable energy industries create a bigger impact than fossil fuels, and are capable to generate more jobs in the future than fossil fuel industries will be able to. A study done by the Natural Resource Defense Council said that if present trends continue, these four global warming impacts alone will come with a price tag of almost 1.9 trillion annually (in today"s dollars), by 2100. The Impact is that Mitigating the effects of climate change is important because of how much it is costing the world. With more jobs being created, the economy is being reboosted. Obviously countries have a moral obligation if climate change is costing them money. 3. Moral Obligation Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country"s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian). Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism: It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted "Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security. Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives. The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. 4. The Environment Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5"C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. The Impact is that if the Earth"s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late.

  • PRO

    60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm...

    Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

    Before I begin, I would like to bring up a prior statement you made from Round One: "Correlation is always an argument in this debate...It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it." (See Round one for full quote.) . I would like to point out that this is true, but the Regression Factor of CO2 would of course not be as effectual as the Irradiance of the Sun, as that is where all energy on our planet originates. The r=.44 of Carbon is not as large as the PDO and AMO (Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation), but .44 still means that there is a strong enough correlation, that it may affect our mean temperature. Of course, the .83 r factor of our currents is more effectual, since a large amount of our world’s heat is stored in our oceans as shown in the following chart: [2] Notice that there are more high temperature areas in the oceans (mostly since the ocean is 75% of the Earth's surface area), and that they go farther North and South than the land masses do. This was meant to be included in my last round, I'm sorry for including it now. 1. Climate Change is real and is a threat There definitely have been natural warmings of our planet, but never as fast as these last 162 years in which we have kept records of our planet's weather. In the last 7 years alone, Carbon counts globally have risen 18ppm according to various studies. [1, 3] In regards to the end of a noticeable rise in temperature being 1995, I still wholly agree. However: it is well known that just because one thing happens, the effects of it are not immediately felt. Just as how we are only now seeing light from stars that shone that light millions of years ago. The ocean's currents will not change immediately, but slowly over a few years, as will sea level. Though sea levels aren't rising worldwide, they are growing by an average rate of 3.11mm per year, an increase in the average (documented prior to 2000) of 1.63mm more per year. [4] "However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years," is a quote from my Round Two which you referenced in your rebuttal: "Regardless...the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]." (See Round two for full quote) I would like to point out that I never said there were more hurricanes, only that these storms were stronger than before. Again, I will cite this: [5] As for your claim that hurricane intensity has flat lined, realize that your source only documents hurricanes post-landfall. Landfall is when the eye of the hurricane is only on land, and hurricanes begin to lose force as the storm's boundaries cross the shore line, so most hurricanes are documented at a weaker strength after they have already done the majority of the damage they can. [6] Allow me to define climate: noun. 1. The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. The prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest. [7] According to this, the dust bowl was an effect of climate change, and my opponent even says that it was caused by humans through over-farming. 2. Humans are the cause of climate change First thing I would like to say in this section is that your source 7 is out of date, as many more have been released since then that contradict what is put forth here. [3, 8] As for Carbon ppm being 3000ppm 60mya, I must cry false, as 3000ppm is only a few thousand ppm lower than during the Cambrian era, in which the mean temperature was 7 degrees centigrade higher than today. 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm during the last years of Cretaceous era, and 500ppm only 6 million years later in the Paleocene era. [9-11] In accordance to your claim that glaciers are growing, I will argue that, saying that they grow in height, but not enough to compensate for the amount lost -- or not even gained in the first place -- each year. I can agree that these ice masses slowed their ice loss, but they resumed to lose more after your source 8 and 9 were published. [12, 13] 3. Fixing the problem Renewable energy sources are continuing to become more efficient. Remember: it took us, as Hominids, 400,000 to achieve the level of efficiency we have today in combustion. [14, 15] To dismiss our strides in renewable energy so quickly is rash and immature as a species. Sure, wind turbines are dangerous to avian life. Hydro plants are obtrusive and change the local climate due to human interference. [16] Solar cells are expensive and large, and the output is not always sufficient. However! These innovations are from the last century, and in the next decade, we will have technologies that will far surpass what we have today as a renewable source. Even now, the photovoltaics which Con so easily dismissed are being produced and developed more than any renewable source (nuclear excluded, not renewable) with 1/100th the cost and 50% more efficiency. These are simply trial versions as well. [17] Wind kites can harness energy for the average home with no human maintenance and a 30-50-killowatt/hour range, with even more effective versions in development. [18] Biomass fuels are becoming more common [19] and soon may be one of the must substantial sources of fuel. Nuclear energy is the best we have (for now) in lieu of a completely clean renewable energy. If these energies were more substantial in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, etc., the crisis we may be facing in the next decade can be stopped before it even starts. New Section: 4. The animal effect Concentrated atmospheric pollution kills millions of animals and gives humans living there life-threatening complications. [20] As these animals die from new diseases, pollution, and habitat loss (also climate change), we face a grim future. The complex chain of animals in our environment is so precarious, that one extinction or introduction could topple a whole ecosystem, throwing that climate in to turmoil, domino-ing the whole planet. In Conclusion! I believe that this round gives a broader view of the problem than Con is willing to propose, but cannot be neglected. VOTE PRO [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] http://www.physicalgeography.net... [3] http://climate.nasa.gov... [4] http://climate.nasa.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] NationalHurricaneCenter (2009). Glossary of NHC Terms: Landfall. Retrieved on 2009-02-05. [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] http://climate.nasa.gov... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://climate.nasa.gov... [13] http://climate.nasa.gov... [14] Price, David. "Energy and Human Evolution". Retrieved 2012 December 10. [15] James, Steven R. (February 1989). "Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence". [16] http://en.wikipedia.org... [17] Streep, Abe. "The Brilliant Ten: Greg Nielson." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 47. Print. [18] North, Dave. "Blueprint: Higher Power." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 18. Print. [19] http://www.tgdaily.com... [20] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. *for sources 9-11, use chart in upper-right hand corner

  • PRO

    He found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees C, with upper...

    Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

    C1) Climate sensitivity is likely high Climate sensitivity is the key argument to this debate. Everyone agrees that CO2 has some direct effect, at least 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 concentration. This is what former climate modeler turned skeptic David Evans argues. “[All] serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.” [1] What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are important because they tell us how much warming we will have in the future. They amplify -- or dampen -- the warming effect of CO2. Changes in albedo, cloud cover, water vapor, and greenage can all affect warming. If sensitivity is 2-3 degrees C, CO2 can explain most of the warming since the late 70s. If it is lower it still causes a significant amount. My opponent needs to pretty much argue that the amplification effects are under one in order to win. Let us assume that climate sensitivity is low. Say, feedbacks are around zero (no positive or negative feedbacks); every doubling of CO2 leads to roughly 1.1 degrees C increase in temperature. Even this unrealistically low climate sensitivity does not harm the AGW hypothesis. Nir Al Shaviv, a skeptical physicist, wrote a paper assuming the feedback effect was 1.1 degrees. He calculated that CO2 actually caused slightly over half of the modern warming trend [2] (about 57%). The famous Lindzen and Choi (and Spencer) results are really the only ones which cast doubt on the fact that CO2 is responsible for the warming. But Nir Al Shaviv told me in an email, “[m]y best estimate is that the sensitivity is higher than Lindzen and Choi, actually closed to no net amplifier, with the 50% of the CO2 doubling, the Anthropogenic contribution is also around 50%.” [3] Essentially, he verified what I sent to him in an email with calculations I had done assuming the amplifier was flat. My data found that it caused about 49.5% of the warming, but I failed to take into account the logarithmic effect of CO2, which makes the effect over 50%. Even then, these assumptions are incorrect. Sensitivity is higher, and if it is, CO2 pretty much causes far more than 50% of the warming, but both estimates are enough to win me the debate. Research by Patrick Michaels, now a libertarian, CATO scholar found the amplifier to be 1.6 degrees C [4]. More than the 1.1 above. This puts the man made contribution to global warming above 50%, and certainly above 57%. This is not even including other gases which amplify the greenhouse effect. The burgeoning evidence suggests that the net amplifier is around 2-3 degrees C. Based on multiple lines of evidence, stemming from volcanic eruptions, instrumental records, paleoclimatology, and more, the mean sensitivity sits firmly at about 3 degrees C. The following picture demonstrates the evidence. As seen, the average never dips below 2 degrees C. The mean is 2 - 4.5 degrees C, all of which are enough for me to win the debate. 2 degrees C probably puts you around 70% of the warming is due to CO2, and 3 at nearly 100%, though I have not done the math (yet…). Some studies find fairly high sensitivity, around 4 degrees C. JD Annan, a leading climatologist, uses a Bayesian statistical technique, the predominant methodology in both the skeptic and realist literature. He found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees C, with upper estimates at 4 degrees C, though still possible, but very unlikely below 3 degrees C [5]. The following graph [6], which I like because since I have used it pretty much everyone else has stolen it, shows the results from 3 leading studies. Although the results are uncertain, they are certain in that sensitivity is above 2 degrees C. A new paper, published in 2012, actually went against the consensus and found low sensitivity. Despite this, their results concluded that “[h]umanity is . . . responsible for the most recent period of warming from 1976 to 2010.” [7] Sensitivity is high. That means I win the debate. If it is low, I still win the debate because it caused 50% of more of the modern warm period. C2) Evidence from paleoclimatology I love paleoclimatology. I like geology and come from a family of geologists who are also oil entrepenueres (maybe why I still have skeptic leanings). And pretty solid evidence in the paleoclimatological record actually shows a strong CO2 effect. I am just going to c/p my debate with Roy. There is significant evidence from paleoclimate records that CO2 can have an effect on changes in the climate. Climate skeptic and paleoclimatologist Bob Carter emphasizes the importance of paleoclimate data. He compares climate to a piece of string. The current instrumental data (1850 – present) is a very short period of time, according to Carter. And when the ‘string’ is lengthened, we see a lot of climactic variability. Instead of looking at the recent past, we should look at the entire temperature record in order to get an accurate picture of the climate [8]. I will provide evidenc, contrary to what Carter believes, lengthening the string supports AGW theory. Over the Cenozoic Era, which began 66 million years ago, we see clear warming and cooling cycles caused by changes in CO2 concentrations. The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. Plate tectonics was also accounted for. With natural forcings an unlikely cause, “CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic” [9]. When you lengthen the ‘string’ over the course of the entire Phanerozoic (500 million years; begins at the Cambrian) there is still evidence of CO2 driving multiple climate changes. The GEOCARB study, published in 2001, is one of the definitive proxy records for CO2 concentrations within the last 500 million years. The study notes that “over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature” [10]. Evidence from the Vostok ice cores (specifically 240,000 before present), proves that CO2 has had an effect on temperatures. Although the initial forcing was orbital changes in the sun, CO2 “plays . . . a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing” and “the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation”. The study also notes that these forcings “are also at work for the present-day and future climate” [11]. There is also proof that it is warmer now than it has been since the MWP. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400 AD [12]. Newer reconstructions continue to support this finding, and even extends the dataset. It finds that the Roman warm period (RWP) and the MWP as much cooler than today, and claims to have replicated previous ‘hockey stick’ studies [19]. The results are depicted below. Looking into the geologic past, we see strong evidence in favor of the idea that carbon dioxide can increase temperature. It logically follows that if humans continue to emit CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, that human emissions will increase temperatures. C3) Consensus Before I continue, I would like to note this argument in and of itself does not prove that global warming is caused by man. Actual evidence should be the driving force behind this debate. The reason I chose to put this in my argument is simple: the science is not clear because of consensus, but a consensus exists because the evidence is clear. This evidence will be discussed later. A study published in Science reviewed the ISI web of science in order to take a survey of relevant climate literature as to what the causes of climate change are. The study failed to find a single paper which was in opposition to the consensus position, that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic. 75% of the papers supported the consensus position, whereas 25% had no position (they were focused on things other than forgings, like impacts or paleoclimate) [14]. The study also noted how many organizations have come out supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all concluded that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming [15]. NASA furthers this argument, noting “most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position”. They also argue “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities” [16]. A 196 page report representing 13 governmental agencies, and written by 28 authors from scientific institutions, has stated “[t]he global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases” [17]. 1. https://mises.org... 2. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il... 3. Personal Correspondence. 4. http://www.int-res.com... 5. http://www.jamstec.go.jp... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.scirp.org... 8. Bob Carter. Climate: The Counter Consensus (London: Stacey International, 2011). 9. http://www.columbia.edu... 10. http://earth.geology.yale.edu... 11. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu... 12. http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca... 13. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 14. http://www.sciencemag.org... 15. Ibid. 16. http://climate.nasa.gov... 17. http://downloads.globalchange.gov...

  • PRO

    Us should definetely engage more with China concerning...

    US Should Engage More With China Concerning Climate Change

    Us should definetely engage more with China concerning climate change since these two countries are at the top of the most influential countries in the world. And climate change is a global problem that can only be soluted if major countries cooperate and try to solve together this issue that doesn't affect one country in specific but the whole Humanity

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/US-Should-Engage-More-With-China-Concerning-Climate-Change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.40
      climate: 15.93
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.15 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.94)
      change: 10.48
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.94)
  • PRO

    Money for nothing, and your climate for free." ... If...

    Fossil fuel subsidies contradict fight against climate change.

    Steve Kretzmann. "Money for nothing, and your climate for free." Oil Change International. September 16th, 2011: "The principle is simple and clear: You can’t really say you’re committed to the fight against climate change if you’re still funding oil and coal. If you’re in a hole, stop digging."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Phasing_out_fossil_fuel_subsidies
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.36
      climate: 15.88
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 10.47
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.92)
  • PRO

    I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not...

    Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

    In other words you claim Donald Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything to turn heads. The fact that Donald Trump words suggest that Donald Trump thinks Climate Changeis a hoax does not matter. I'll accept that. Politicians are know to lie. I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not given me any option, other than to create a new argument in the 3rd round, so here it goes. Actions speak louder than words Donald Trump destroyed a scientific area of interest and natural habitat in order to build a golf course in Scotland. [3][4] Clearly, both in actions and words Trump has no respect for the environment. My opponent has shown that Trump is a compulsive liar, so his words should not matter. I think the only out for my opponent now is to prove that Trump knows that climate change is real and a threat, but is so greedy that he destroys the environment anyway. Thanks for the debate. Sources 3. http://www.imdb.com... 4. http://www.nytimes.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.29
      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 2.08)
      change: 10.10
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • PRO

    They continue to explain they aren't certain about...

    The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

    "I then further read under the category of "What's Not Certain" the EPA states it is not certain about "Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes."" But in the section about what they do know, they say that they know that it's happening, and they know that it's caused by humans. They're just not certain about how much humans contribute, percentagewise. "Furthermore, the EPA's research is under suspicion anyway. There are two EPA workers who are highly critical of the EPA's memo on carbon gas. The are critical of both the substances of and the process behind the agency's proposed findings" The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans. If you want to take a memo that may or may not have been slightly unsupportive towards the climate change plight and construe it so it looks like it is destroying years of scientific conjecture, well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Do I wish that climate change wasn't happening, you bet I do. But unfortunately that's not the case. "Additionally, in November of 2009, over 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were posted on the internet." Oy gevalt! You went there... To answer your argument, yes, I am aware of the scandal, but no, I do not believe that it means anything, other than the fact that deniers are going to be that much more difficult to deal with. As I said, it would be really nice if you were right, but the sad fact is that years of scientific conjecture are not going to change because of a few emails. These emails are just a red herring of sorts. But to claim that they overturn years of science and research is ludicrous at best. "We are talking about an average over a long period of time to determine warming. Everyone would agree that one hour or one day of higher than normal temperatures does not constitute as a long enough time to establish global warming." You are correct, but the increased incidence of unusual occurrences and records make it clear that something is happening. For example, we have always had El Nino events, but they have become much more common and much stronger in recent years. If we didn't have that trend, an El Nino year would just mean that the south Pacific was warm at that particular point. Now, it means that the south Pacific is getting warmer, and it might not go back. "The EPA report you continue to quote says that it is uncertain in "Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range." If your coveted EPA cannot project future climate changes, how can you?" Greenhouse emissions are from people, my friend. We don't know how society will be in the future, and so we can't know how the climate will change if we don't know what we're going to be putting into the system. "They continue to explain they aren't certain about "Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover."" I'm sorry, but Merlin does not run the EPA. You can try to tell Lisa Jackson that she needs to take psychic lessons. My point is, there is a fine line between following scientific trends and predicting the future. We can't study things that haven't happened yet, or are so new that we can't have seen the results. That is why they invented CFC's in the first place; because they didn't know that CFC's eat up the ozone layer. "There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist." I agree with that whole statement except all of it. There are minor red herrings around scientific secrecy, most likely so other scientists won't discover what they're trying to discover before they discover it. Yes, I know that that's unfortunate, but it by no means disproves or even hurts the case for climate change. "The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change." I believe that to be a gross misinterpretation on your part. They are certain that humans, in some way or another, affect climate change. They just don't quite know exactly how or how much. "I must defer back to you yet again after you read all this compelling evidence and explain that the burden or proof is yours to prove and without it, American Only regulations cannot be expected." You have shown me your "evidence," but the burden of proof is, in fact, upon yourself to show how that "evidence" can be applied as anything other than a mildly interesting piece of information. I'm sorry, but a memo and some emails can't just negate every single piece of information I gave you. If that was how life worked, we wouldn't get anywhere. It is really irresponsible to interpret facts like that, because you are completely ignoring the vast majority of facts. (Can you tell how much I enjoy the argument that it is a scandal/hoax?) "This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community." Once again, how is this anything but a slightly interesting piece of trivia. You can analyze and scrutinize all of the more controversial aspects to the world's end, but you really need to look for the big picture. Basically, what I'm saying is that I really could care less about these so-called "scandals" because they do absolutely nothing to my argument, which you seem to have completely lost track of. "very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today." So, what you're saying is that, whether or not this was a hoax, this graph made us realize and study something which is very real. If you think that this is the only research that has been done, I don't see how you can be qualified to debate this. The fact is, the vast majority of the evidence that we have is absolutely real, peer reviewed data from independent labs. So, I don't want to hear about your scandals or conspiracy theories, because you are completely missing the point. 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. As I said earlier, if there is any reasonable evidence that climate change is caused by humans, there is absolutely no reason to not be more responsible in what we do, just in case. Every single other country is leaps and bounds more responsible than the US in terms of environmental issues. Obviously it would be virtually impossible to spontaneously get 300 million people to be more responsible, so that's why the government needs to step in. There is nothing that says that the US has special rights to spew greenhouse gases into the environment at our own expense as well as the expense of the rest of the world. That is irresponsible. That is selfish. That is just incredibly, astoundingly, disgustingly stupid. It is an incredibly easy fix, and there is nothing more important. What kid doesn't grow up without wanting to save the world? Well, my friend, environmental protections very literally save the world. I would like to thank my opponent for making excellent arguments and, admittedly, being much friendlier than I. While my opponent has done a wonderful job, his arguments were completely unsupported by no fault of his own, but because there is nothing to support them with. It is a fact that humans cause climate change, and the government can very easily alleviate our impact. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to not vote PRO. Thank you.

CON

  • CON

    If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose...

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

    My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled. 2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC. http://joannenova.com.au... Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says. 3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion? (a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol (b) Oceans are rising? Really? I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling. 4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information. 5. Hockey stick fraud. This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. https://www.steynonline.com... 6. NOAA temperature fraud. https://realclimatescience.com...

  • CON

    http://www.heritage.org...) While some try to sweep this...

    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!

  • CON

    I chose to play defense and only address the points you...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.54
      climate: 15.08
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 10.45
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • CON

    So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the...

    Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

    Alright... So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the burden of demonstrating your claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. *I* just have to demonstrate that it's not necessarily true. Dividing it into percentages or fractions doesn't make any sense. Think of it like a courtroom, the defense is just trying to refute the claims of the prosecution, and doesn't carry a higher burden than that. Anyway, my contentions haven't been addressed at all... My opponent just re-read another statement with Trump saying he doesn't believe in climate change but my original contention already refutes that as it discredits the words of Trump and actually looks deeper into his intentions as a presidential candidate. My opponent's guilty of oversimplifying the situation here. Thank you. Good luck in your last round.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.51
      climate: 15.06
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.45
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    And even if it did, progress would be too slow. ... No,...

    Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

    Zarul: 1. You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. Reply: No, it's not hypothetical because what is being debated is one variable about demand for trees. If you want more trees, you want the demand for trees to be as high as possible and recycling paper prevents that. What recycling doesn't have an effect on is saving native forests, which I will get to later. Zarul: As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Reply: Go to Office Max, go to the paper section. Recycled on one self, non-recycled on the other. They are competing. Zarul: "Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. Zarul: A.When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment." Reply: Yes, and then you plant it again and it grows back. Zarul: B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. …if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. Reply: Yes, they keep growing. But what you are leaving out is that they only keep growing in one direction because gravity takes a toll after a while—That's why trees don't grow to be the size of sky scrappers. Trees have an initial growth spurt where they use the most carbon dioxide (growing in two dimensions) and then level off. Old forests really do little for carbon dioxide regulation. http://www.usatoday.com... Zarul: D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. Reply: 1. Leaves are what regulate carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis separates the carbon from the oxygen and stores the carbon in the wood and roots. 2. The discussion was about climate change, not biodiversity or soil erosion. With breakthroughs in genetic mapping, we don't need nature to be the record keeper of genetics. Erosion is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human interaction. Luckily since about the middle ages we have figured out to reduce this with field rotation, and other modern methods. So for point E: If the land were privately held, the tree farmer would keep it at a minimum to ensure more growth and higher profits. Zarul: F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. Reply: How do species going extinct cause climate change? CO2 is the end product of metabolism. If anything, that would lead to less carbon dioxide. Ofcourse I'm not saying we should kill off every animal because they produce C02, just that you need to think through some more about what climate change is. Zarul: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. Reply: No, the countries that contribute the most to climate change are Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The number one cause of deforestation is clearing of land for farming. Urban development, mining, oil extraction, and logging are others. Paper has little to do with virgin forests. By making tree farming more profitable, you are encouraging that at least some of that land will be kept for re-growing trees. Zarul: Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. Reply: No, it would most likely be an American or European country that makes the discovery and uses it in lands in other countries. Why this hasn't happened yet is a separate issue dealing with farm welfare in America and Europe. Zarul: "You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? Reply: Where the national ones are now. If you are poor and the forest is what stands in your way of planting a crash crop, then you will cut it down. If we didn't recycle paper, trees would be more valuable as a resource, so instead of cutting down the forest to farm wheat, you might be more inclined to cut down the forest and replant it. (ofcourse, there are also some trade policies that affect this, but that is neither here nor their) Zarul: My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. Reply: The burden of proof is on you. Zarul: You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved." Reply: Because it is happening now, and the deforestation has little to do with paper and more to do with clearing land for farming other things. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging the farming of trees over other things. Zarul: Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. Reply: But the new wood is picked up from one centralized location—where it is being farmed. To recycle paper you have to have several trucks drive vast distances to collect what amounts to little paper per unit of distance traveled. If it were so much cheaper to recycle, then private companies would have started doing it a long time ago. Instead the government has to subsidies it (with money taken by force), which hides the true costs. Follow the prices. Zarul: C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. Reply: No they won't. We can afford to waste money on recycling because we are rich. Recycling is not an industry. Here is the fallacy of that argument: Suppose I went around every house on my block and broke a window by throwing a rock through it. The person who fixes windows would get a lot of business. Is this helping the economy? No, because the money people spend on fixing their windows means they have to forgo something else—instead of buying a new window, they could have bought some new pants.So you see recycling as creating jobs, so it must be good for the economy, but you are forgetting that by creating those jobs, you are forgoing spending that money on something. That's all I could fit in. Well done, good luck to you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Recycling-paper-is-a-good-way-to-fight-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.49
      climate: 15.05
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 10.44
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • CON

    When we see a weather forecast, you are right that they...

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

    What does subways have to do with climate change? Even though the idea of subways was to allow freedom of movement at all times, it is still a idea or vision for the subway and that does not mean it works in practice. Putting the subways aside; no it is not always that the weather forecasts are exact, but they are very often right. When we see a weather forecast, you are right that they are not 100% right, but there is a good reason for that. When you have to forecast the weather, you look at the different pressures in the different areas and thereby predicting e.g. a storms movement a behaviour. So when you see a weather forecast, it is 100% right if nothing in the pressure changed since it was made. Climate change and weather forecast are scientifically proved. Since we can measure the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which is 0.06%, while it was 0.05% 50 years ago. That's an increase on 20% which is obvious with the boom in the oil industry.

  • CON

    The temperature then drops and rises again independent of...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    My opponent accepts that his first argument is a correlation so there is no need to strengthen my argument there. My opponents second argument states, """When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.""" To disprove this I will do it line by line. Line 1: When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit This line is true but only in some cases. For example, the mini ice age, which we exited 1000 years ago, was not initiated by changes in the earths orbit. Line 2: This line is just wrong. The oceans do store Co2 but what is released when they warm is mostly water vapor, not Co2. This water vapor then causes more clouds which then cools the Earth. This is common knowledge among scientists because this is exactly how cosmic rays cause cooling. Line 3: Yes, rising temperature causes more Co2 to be released but by simply looking at ice core data we can see that this does not cause an infinite rise in temperature. The temperature then drops and rises again independent of the Co2 that was released from the previous rise. For an example, look at this graph: http://www.geocraft.com... My opponents next argument is just plain wrong. My opponent states, ""Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." " To disprove this all you need to do is read the caption at the top of the graph below where it lists its source. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... As you can see, the graph was not based on temperature estimates but the "global mean temperature change..." I don't know where you got the idea that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998 but from your sources it seems that this data is only true once you remove the El Nino. My question to you is why hasn't the Earth warmed since the El Nino. In the 20 years since the temperature maximum temperature doesn't increase at all. In addition to this, the El Nino just proves the fact that there are other influences in climate that influence temperature more then Co2 or enough to distort data. For my opponents next argument he states that my source is not credible. This is just not true. Just because the maker of the website is paid to research evidence against man made global warming does not immediately make all of his evidence untrue. My opponent does not provide any actual contrary evidence to debate this point but to satisfy their needs I will give a link to multiple graphs sourced from other websites showing the same thing. http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.drroyspencer.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com... My opponents next argument is not relevant to man made climate change. My opponents next argument states, "Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5] As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. " I will cede this point to my opponent as it is a result of warming and not relevant to man causing the warming. I should not have brought it up and while I still have arguments to dispute it do not wish to argue this view any longer. As for why the documentary was manipulated, I do not wish to argue this any more either for the same reasons listed above nevertheless I will provide a short article to explain my first argument. I know that the article does not provide much info on the subject but if you really want to understand the argument then you need to research it yourself. http://www.newsmax.com... Nextl, to strengthen my point of the debate, I will argue that Earth is not the only planet warming. The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field, Jupiter"s "white ovals" are disappearing and melding together in its atmosphere (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. As you can see from the long paragraph I have provided above, the entire Solar System seems to be warming or experiencing some sort of weird climate change patterns. This indicates more then just a global event. To conclude my argument, I will provide a graph of Co2 and Temperature over the long term that should, on its own, disprove entirely the idea of man-made climate change. http://www.paulmacrae.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./8/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.43
      climate: 15.02
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.05)
      change: 10.41
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)
  • CON

    1] The second issue I have with this rebuttal is that the...

    Humans cause climate changing

    In response to my contention that the planet does not need humans in order for the climate to change, my opponent has simply stated that, it was 248 Million years ago, implying, I assume, that this is not relevant to today's climate. The problem with this statement is twofold. First of all, the Mesozoic Era ended in the late Cretaceous, which was 65 Million years ago as opposed to 248. That's considerably closer to modern time. Also, in the period closer to us, there was no Ice at The poles. [1] The second issue I have with this rebuttal is that the Mesozoic era is not the only example of pre-industrial age climate change. In fact, duing the last 2 billion years the earths climate has been fluctuating between a "hot house" and an "Ice House", clearly illustrated in the chart below: Taken from http://www.scotese.com... [2] In fact, If you look at the chart, you notice that, for a long period of time we have had a downwards trend in the climate of the earth. This is infact, the longest downward trend in recorded history. So we are actually long overdue for a warming earth, and when you look at the big picture, the logical thing for the earth is for it to keep warming as it has in the past. Next we move on to my opponents next point, about humans actually having deliberately influenced the weather. While at first it may seem like this is an insurmountable argument for man-made climate change, it is actually rather irrelevant. You see, what my opponent has failed to take into account is the difference between climate and weather. Climate is defined as: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. [3] So humans deciding that they do not want it to rain tomorrow is not an example of climate change, it is an example of weather change. Even a nuclear explosion, which will change the weather for perhaps a few months, is still not climate change, as it has not had a sustained, long term affect on the climate. The very article that Pro provides to substantiate his claim that CO2 emissions by humans are the leading cause of climate chanche clearly lists water vapour as the most common greenhouse gas found in the atmosphere. And how does water vapour get into the atmosphere? By evaporation powered by the sun, not by humans. And while I will conceded that humans are the No.1 producer of CO2 in the world, as I said in my previous argument, methane, a common natural gas, is actually more effective at trapping head than Carbon Dioxide. A single volcano, such as Mount Eyjafjoell in Iceland, can produce around 300,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. This places the one volcano alone above countries such as Austria, Portugal and Ireland in terms of emmisions. In conclusion I have clearly demonstrated how the earths climate can easily change, and has been changing, without any help from man, how many made weather is not climate change and how human CO2 emission is not such a big problem as we think it is. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com... [2] http://www.scotese.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Humans-cause-climate-changing/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.33
      climate: 20.46
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 9.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.88)
      sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.17)
      change: 4.87
      premises: 4.48 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.74)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)
  • CON

    Source CDC [6]. ... I had to give up on the pictures was...

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

    Outline I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. V. Climate has steadily increased VI. Conclusion VII. Works cited Round three rebuttals. I will now respond to my opponent’s round one and two arguments. In round four I will respond to round three and round five I will respond to round four. This is out of fairness since my opponent will not get a chance to respond to my round five. I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth When you add more Co2 to the atmosphere, The Co2 reaches a higher point in space, Increasing the greenhouse warming effect. The greenhouse warming effect is nowhere near saturation. The myth revolves around the misrepresentation that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, So therefore, Greenhouse warming is at a saturation point. While it is true that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, Some of the heat escapes further up into the atmosphere. Thus, More Co2 will reach further into the atmosphere. Insert picture of Australia and heat rising if possible from skepticalscience. Dana1981 updated July 2015. [5] II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. First, There are climate change scientists, And they are only about 100 of them, They are experts within experts on climate change. Second, There are many scientists who disagree about climate change in less related fields, And they still have their jobs. Source Denial 101x course. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. A virus is very small compared to a human. Yet, The measles virus kills over 100, 000 people a year. The flu viruses kills 291, 000 and 646, 000 people each year. Source CDC [6]. Viruses are measured in nanometer or one billionth of a meter. Source [7] britannica. Com That’s one millionth of a millimeter. Now if viruses kill humans everyday it is very possible for humans to act like a virus and destroy the atmosphere of the Earth. Destroying the Earth as in Darth Vader and the Death Star would be extremely difficult given our current level of technology, But destroying the atmosphere. Yes, Very feasible. Two main ways, One global cooling through nuclear winter. Option two, Global warming through greenhouse gas emission. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. First, I will add that governments historically have performed terrible atrocities, Slaves of Sparta, Slaughter of native Americans Indians during colonial times, Slave state of blacks in southern USA, The Armenian genocide, WWII holocaust of the Jews, And many more. Therefore, The instigator is correct to have a baseline level of mistrust for government. Yet, This mistrust is taken too far and thus extreme. I concur that Iraq probably was about the oil and not about freedom. Yet, Of that long list of conspiracy theories that is the only point I agree with. The world did not go into an Ice Age because we stopped using aerosols that damaged the ozone layer which also caused global cooling. Most of the conspiracies seemed to be linked to medical and viruses which is off-topic and pseudoscience. Ironically the instigator is the one who is confused by invisible monsters. Quacks constantly fear monger. Brain fog, Leaky gut syndrome, chemtrails, BPA, and many more invisible monsters to scare innocents out of money. BPA for example there just is not enough information according to sciencebasedmedicine. Org Steven Novella September 17th 2008. Just look at this sentence “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. ” Akhenaten Just replace governments with quacks. Thus, The world quacks constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science. A confused mass of people has not got time because they are so preoccupied running and hiding from invisible monsters that the quacks create to scare them. V. Climate has steadily increased I will now respond to round one. Here is a picture, Hopefully of how ocean water temperatures have steadily increased. Yes climate change is human made, The change is mostly due to Co2 from burning of fossil fuels via industrial activities. About the communists and dictators this is an inflammatory, False accusation, And bare assertion. Finally, The link between climate change and communist shows overt conservative bias on the instigator’s part, Reds under the bed mentality. Most like this person has a high belief in free market and thus disbelieving climate change on those grounds. Deciding that climate change is false and then looking for evidence to back up the decision as opposed to looking for evidence first and then a conclusion. I learned the above from the denial 101x course about deniers come to a conclusion first and look for evidence second. The conclusion is based upon strong belief in a free market economy. VI. Conclusion I have show how my opponent’s claim about Co2 saturation is misleading since Earth is nowhere near a greenhouse saturation point. Co2 is only saturated at the surface, But some of the heat escapes higher into the atmosphere and then trapped by Co2 higher in the atmosphere. I have disproved my opponent’s claim about scientists being fired for disagreeing with climate change, Plenty in unrelated fields do and keep their jobs. I have shown that humans can have a tremendous impact on the climate despite having a small mass compared to the Earth. First, With an analogy of a virus to a human. Despite the virus being much smaller, Still being able to kill humans. Second, Humans could easily cause a nuclear winter and thus global cooling. Finally, Global warming can be caused via excessive atmospheric Co2. Quacks are doing the fear mongering, Not governments. Global warming is occurring now costing 150, 000 lives annually and can be seen by rising ocean temperatures. VII. Works cited debate. Org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/4346963/ Hopefully this work cited works. I had to give up on the pictures was not posting.

  • CON

    I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but...

    The political science of climate change

    That was great, very professional. As I am in no way a polished or trained debater I relish the opportunity to rebut your arguments. It is truly fun to mix it up with the ivory tower crowd! I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but maybe next time. I will attempt to put this in a format that is organized, but please forgive me if you get confused. Green Guilt Is there anyone on the planet that would disagree that the IPCC is the driving force behind the religion of AGW, even fabricating, or manipulating data in order to prove their foregone conclusion? Here is a good article explaining the problems with the IPCC. http://wattsupwiththat.com... See, they actually are political, but when people only follow what .gov tells them they miss these things. As far as green guilt goes, it is part of the religion of Climate Change, kind of like sinning. Teach the children to feel guilty, especially here in America and they will follow blindly. Eugenicists A couple articles on that. http://www.edie.net... http://www.thenewamerican.com... Who are the elite globalist eugenicists? Here they are. http://truthstreammedia.com... By the way you never addressed Agenda 21, the bible of the modern eugenic billionaires. The Globalist Elites Bill Gates and Soros, two of the most influential Soros even helped the Nazis confiscate Jews property during the holocaust and has no remorse, in his own words. http://thearrowsoftruth.com... http://say-no-to-agenda-21-de-population.blogspot.com... I do appreciate that you cited scholarly articles however I doubt that you personally could prove any part of them except that they were written by folks that desperately want to keep their high paying, world traveling, taxpayer subsidized jobs, and are willing to write almost anything to make the politicians happy, and who buys the politicians? The Elites. I will go further into Agenda 21 as I really would like your input on this. My take is that United Nations Agenda 21 is a soft tyranny based eugenic plan formed with the blessing of Gates, Soros and their henchmen that live above the world in partnership with entities like the UN and The World Bank. The plan is very complicated, well thought out, and full of players/minions that think of nothing except how they can get a big paycheck from these guys. Agenda 21 starts with creating the illusion that humans are wrecking the planet with CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, measured in parts per MILLION, and is actually very beneficial to plants. It is plant food, and is barely detectable, except it is the perfect measure to justify their energy reducing actions. There is a man named Maurice Strong who may be one of the most influential players you never heard of, but he is very powerful and has been pulling strings at the UN for a long long time. Here is some background. http://www.infowars.com... I prefer you watch the videos of Soros and Strong as their own words convict themselves as eugenic minded elites. By the way the industrialized world he is talking about dismantling is us, so park your carbon spewing conveyance, and ride a bike to work, or maybe you do already. The goal of agenda 21 is to move the vast majority of population into cities and to reclaim the land for use only by elites and their slaves, like the ones Marx wanted to till the fields. Are you familiar with Marxism? All of the elites are into it big time, even our president. Anyway, I want to give you a chance to rebut so I will leave you with all that, make of it what you will and please do not hesitate to challenge me and we can go 5 or more rounds if you are interested, I love to challenge the establishment. Thanks!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.18
      climate: 14.38
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 10.81
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 1.68 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)