Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 2.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate...

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

    Aff Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosphers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigting the effects of climate change is neccessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that •The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; •Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; •The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries.

  • PRO

    This is the case for climate change scientists. ... Known...

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

    Well, Firstly, You have ignored my first post completely and not addressed any of the information that I have supplied. In order to win this debate you must address your opponents comments and points otherwise it is not a debate but just a display of ideas without any acknowledgement or refutation of your opponents ideas. I will attempt to address your comments which you have thus failed to do. 1. Consensus is not a valid scientific methodology. Nothing can be proven just through shear weight of numbers of people that believe something to be true. The only way to prove something to be true or false is through - logic, Evidence and reason. The science community is not going to provide any evidence against climate change because they make a living out of it and therefore, It is not in their monetary and career related ambitions to disprove it. 2. Experts. You can't always trust an expert. Especially, If they can make money from their mistakes or by telling lies. This is the case for climate change scientists. It is far more profitable and they have better career prospects if they agree with climate change then if they disagree with it. 3. Car industry example - Is that why Volkswagen was sued for 4 billion of dollars in regards to providing false data in regards to engine exhaust emissions? Is that why millions of vehicles are recalled each year in regards to unsatisfactory and unsafe parts? 4. Computer trust - I paid for anti -virus software for many years until I learnt through trial and error that I didn't need it. Thus, All disease and virus is avoidable through proper diet (for humans) and intake of proper data (uncorrupted) in the case of computers. Thus, The computer industry profits from anti-virus software which is essentially unnecessary. Note - I can - build my own computer, Fix electrical problems, Plumbing, Fix car, Carpentry, Painting, Build house and grow my own food. Thus, I am not reliant on the system to provide for me for anything. Quote - Climate change is an existential threat. As seen by the livescience link humanity will be doomed by 2050 if we ignore climate change for the next thirty years. [0] Large portions of Earth will be inhabitable which will lead to unrest and possibly war. This means climate change could cause the extinction of the human race. Reply - I have already shown data on the properties of CO2 which show that the climate is not going to disintegrate in the future. Note - If the climate did get hotter, This would be a bonus for humanity because it would mean increases in agricultural output. There are no negative aspects of temperature increase. Note - We are still moving out of the Ice Age, Which began occurring 10, 000 years ago. This is what has triggered mankind's growth over this time period. If the Ice Age didn't end, We would be still living in caves to this very day. 5. Who started the IPCC? Answer - Maurice Strong. A convicted communist sympathizer who spent his last days hiding in China under the protection of the Chinese Communist Party and wanted for several crimes in relation to extortion and theft of money. Known as the U. N. 's Oil-for-Food- Programme.

  • PRO

    However, scientists at the Department of Energy and...

    First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

    ===Definitions=== First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens. To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong. ===Framework=== The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so. Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change. Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4]. Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries. ===Conclusion=== As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. ===Sources=== [1] http://zfacts.com... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant) [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)

  • PRO

    8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions...

    Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

    Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly. I would like to begin my rebuttal of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round. 1. Global Warming is real and a threat As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder -- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2] Climate change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid. However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression). [4] As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7] 2. Humans are the cause of global warming climate change* There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a. This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average temperature. [10] Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat, and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12] We must also remember that this post-wartime economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had all the goods we could need (for the time being). 3. It should be stopped--specfically with green energy As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption. It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers, need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research. To give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior research to have been frivilous. In Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponent's points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you. [1] http://www.climate-charts.com... [2] http://www.nws.noaa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2010. [6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009. [7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. [8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738. [9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate". Nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012. [12] http://www.epa.gov... (1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago (2*) ppm- Parts Per Million

  • PRO

    Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed...

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

    Thank You for a timely response, I will first go over my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own. First, my opponent talked about how many countries are in debt, and are not in the position to mitigate climate change. However, Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.- USA today. Judge, 20 trillion dollars is the biggest number in this debate, and you have to look to our side for this argument. Not only that, but my second argument clearly talks about how mitigating the effects of climate change can increase jobs in the renewable energy field. Obsviously, since the benefits outweigh the harms, developed countries should have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Their second argument was that developing countries are the countries who wil suffer the worst and the have a huge incentive. However, my opponent is misunderstanding that point. This is about whether these countries should have a MORAL obligation, and as the pollution of CO2 emmissions from these developing countries are going to be pushed to the devloped countries, we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives by 2020. Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed countries don't have a moral obligation to save so many lives, and if he can show the justification of the deaths of so many people because of climate change, then they should win. If he cannot, you have to vote for the pro. My opponents last argument was essentially that developing countries are the ones with the better ideas. However, my opponent gives not evidence or examples backing this claim up, so it should be disregared. Now, to my side. First, I want to go over that adaptation is still an option. Adapting is always an idea. Vaccines which can save 9 million lives is a significant way to adapt, which will lessen the impacts of climate change, therefore mitigating the effects of climate change. Second, global warming can cause harms to the economy, such as a price tag of 1.9 trillion dollars each year by 2100. Mitigating the effects will enable us to avoid this number, and create more money and jobs. Third, my switching to renewable energy, we can stop sending money to terrorist groups, greatly decreasing their proft. Fourth, the enviornment can be greatly saved, saving millions of human lives as well as near extinct species.

  • PRO

    Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global...

    The political science of climate change

    I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go. Green Guilt CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence. Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists.” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming. Globalist Elite Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well. Final Thoughts The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round. Sources: (Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts.) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4] http://www.sciencemag.org... [5] http://www.pnas.org... [6] http://www.sciencemag.org... [7] http://academic.evergreen.edu... [8] http://www.ecd.bnl.gov... [9] http://courses.washington.edu... [10] http://www.nature.com... [11] http://www.geneseo.edu...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.12
      climate: 14.99
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.73 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 11.13
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.00 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)
  • PRO

    President Obama’s new national-security strategy ranks...

    White House threat assessment: Climate change as dangerous as terrororism

    President Obama’s new national-security strategy ranks combating climate change as a priority alongside more traditional threats such as terrorism, biological emergencies and nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states. The White House released an outline Friday of Mr. Obama’s updated national-security strategy, the administration’s first revision in five years. Along with confronting terrorist groups such as the Islamic State and working to reverse automatic budget cuts for national defense, the administration cited climate change as a top priority. President Obama

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/assessing-climate-risks
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.12
      climate: 15.77
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)
      change: 10.35
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.23 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)
  • PRO

    But that it is predominately (50% or more) human caused....

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

    Select winner. 2k. 2 weeks. == Definitions == Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, "changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)" [1]. To clarify "on balance", I am not arguing that climate change is entirely man made. But that it is predominately (50% or more) human caused. ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion == Some abbreviations == AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming [G]CR -- [galactic] cosmic rays TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval warm period LIA -- Little ice age == Rules == 1. No forfeits 2. Nullifying the traditional rule 2 bsh uses. Sources can be put in outside links. For this topic I sometimes need the room :P 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic 8. The BOP is Shared; Pro must argue for independence and Con must argue against 9. Pro must present their case in round one 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss 1. http://www.grida.no...

  • PRO

    Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17...

    The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

    Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession and the U.s economy is struggling again.on the above round i mentioned that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? Sixty nine percent of homes built in last three years are still unsold;we can not be suprised because where there is no employment there is no money.go back and look on the primary sector of that country.the Greece's GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis peak.wow that is good you.GDP generally is defined as the market value of the goods and services produced by a country.one can ask him self that why one country can produce more products than the other country.i wonder why did Greece obtain such a less percent of GDP.it means that the primary sector of that country is not doing well.when we look such many things are manufactured from farming.the problem may be with the land nor the farmers.the Philippines is one of the countries that suffer the most from extreme weather events which exact a high death toll and economic losses.analyzing data from 1991 to 2010,germanwatch,a climate and development organization,said the Philippines ranked 10th among countries when it comes to exposure and responding to severe weather caused by climate change.all the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ,the study noted.aside from the philippines,there were Bangladesh,Burma,Honduras,Nicaragua,Haiti,Vietman,the Dominican republic,Pakhstan and north korea.what about these identified countries? Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change?when can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition.this year's analysis underline that less developed countries are generally more affected than industrialized countries,according to the climate risk index.with regard to future climate ,the climate risk index can serve as a warning signal indicating past vulnerability which may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe through climate change.

  • PRO

    Thus, Scientists have no incentive to disprove climate...

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

    CO2 is a trace gas - 0. 04 % of the atmosphere is CO2. There isn't enough CO2 to effect anything. CO2 has the same properties as glass. Once you reach it's saturation point of around 80 parts per million you get very little and a rapid decrease in any further reflection of the infra red spectrum. The earth is not like a greenhouse. The Earth is more like a thermostat. It transfers hot and cold air. A greenhouse doesn't transfer hot and cold air. Thus, A thermostat is a self regulating system which maintains an even temperature. A greenhouse is an enclosed space which doesn't allow air to circulate and the space becomes hotter than what the exterior environment is. This all assuming that a hotter planet would be a bad place to live in which is another false assumption. Note- A hotter climate would be beneficial to all living plants and animals. Whereas a cooler climate would be a disaster because less sunlight and lower temperatures mean less shelter and food for all plants and animals. Thus, This highlights the utter stupidity of the climate alarmists whom assume that a warmer climate would lead to some kind of disaster. Note - All studies which show that humans are to blame for the climate changing contain false data and are produced by scientists that have hidden agendas. Note - Scientists need to create disasters so as to create jobs for themselves and to increase their income, Status and career prospects. Thus, Scientists have no incentive to disprove climate change because if they do, They will find themselves being blacklisted and out of work permanently. Thus, Scientists are glad to agree with climate change because it ensures their future and safeguards their reputations.

CON

  • CON

    The warming of the earht is not unusual. ... If anything...

    Climate Shift

    Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says "the scientist say its right, so its right." Climate change models have been failing for years now. It was predicted that by 2013 there would benno polar ice left. In 2013 the ice capsnincreased massively. In fact, there was little polarnice in the 1930s, but the ice increased rapidly until the 80s when they started to shrink again. The warming of the earht is not unusual. The medieval warming period had heats hotter then the heat today. The little ice following it had tempatures far colder then today. This shows heat change is normal. In fact overall planet tempature has decrised since the 90s. The super hurricanes predicted by envirmentalist have not come. The hurricanes of the early 1900s were far stronger then today's. The hurricane that destroyed galvistonnis a good example. If anything shows the fallacy of climate change, it is the mound of failed environmentalists predictions.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.17
      climate: 20.33
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 4.84
      premises: 4.45 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • CON

    I cannot access this source. ... Kind Regards, I am...

    Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

    Kind Regards for you arguments. Also, I always back up my argument, otherwise it would be opinion and not a proper argument. Rebuttals and arguments: First and foremost I would like to refer to what I wrote in the comments, previous to Pro posting their statement. This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. As such I will simply quote myself, as to what I said in the comments: "I have studied agriculture, I know what effect agriculture has on the environment very well. However, the majority of agricultural problems arising are not simply from 'factory farming'. (And with that I mean environmental, not solely emission wise) But as for their sources, here's the list: http://www.cowspiracy.com...... I will analyse their sources on Greenhouse gases from top to bottom: 1.) I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and climate change, but only between Farming and Climate change. However, 'factory farming' makes up under 50% (around 40%) of animal related agriculture, and evidence suggests that non factory farmed animals produce more emission than 'factory farmed' animals, meaning that even they would have a higher emission than 'factory farming'. It is furthermore to state that the graph provided in round 1 is for the U.S, and it is to mention that the U.S. has one of the highest 'factory farming' sectors, with around 99% of agricultural animals held in the U.S. being held in 'factory farming' setting (https://www.aspca.org...). This would mean that, looking at above graph, factory farming most definitely is not the primary cause of man made global climate change. Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. Conclusion: This means that none of Pro's sources can be seen as evidence that Factory Farming is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.

  • CON

    I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    To conclude my case I would like to point out the obvious flaws in the opposition's previous case. They stated: "Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin." Once again I correct the affirmative on the correct wording of the topic. The topic of this debate is that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Throughout their entire case the affirmative seems to be referring to their fictional topic of: CO2 is the largest factor in global warming. The affirmative also stated that my evidence was backing this fictional topic. Whilst this may be true, proving that CO2 emissions are not the largest factor of global warming only adds to the overall proof that they are not directly responsible for the effects. To clear confusion, the definition of directly responsible is: without anyone or anything intervening. Whilst the affirmative continued to provide arguments proving the existence of CO2 emissions as the largest factor, they did not provide any points stating the absence of an intervention. There are many examples of other processes in our natural world that are speeding up the global warming. Some of these include methane emissions from cattle, deforestation and chemical fertilisers on crop lands. Although the affirmative believes that CO2 emissions play the largest role in heating the planet, they are not the sole reason behind the issue. If the impossible event of a CO2 emission cease occurred, the Earth would still be heating up. Slowly but surely, the effects of the Earth's orbit and the causes mentioned above will continue to heat the planet that we live on today. The affirmative also stated: "the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing." In theory, this phrase mentions the effects on sun rays on Earth. Incredulously, even these sun rays play a role in global warming and further diminish the affirmatives picture of CO2 emissions being directly responsible. In a surprising twist to the debate, the affirmative suddenly seems to understand the topic of the debate towards the end of their case and produces the statement below. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. "CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it." Cold hard evidence against the point brought up by the affirmative can be found in my first argument. Global warming is simply defined as increasing temperatures on our planet. Carbon dating and a myriad of other scientific tests show the heating and cooling of the planet well before the involvement of the Industrial Revolution. If the planet was heating up during Medieval periods, how can the affirmative say that CO2 is the cause of global warming when the people of the past had not even heard of the word carbon? In finality, I am not denying the fact that global warming exists. I am not denying that CO2 emissions play a considerable role in the heating of our planet. However, I do deny the views of the affirmative in thinking the CO2 emissions play a sole role in global warming. There are many other factors that are also contributing to the heating of our planet. In further expansion, I deny the politicians and organisational leaders within our world. The planet is heating up and it is effecting ecosystems and environments alike. Whilst we sit here and debate whether CO2 emissions are directly responsible, politicians all over the globe are doing the same. It is time to stop the debate and face the fact that although CO2 emissions have played a big role in global warming, the gradual heating of our planet is totally inevitable. As an international force we need to combat global warming and thus climate change by investigating new methods of adapting to a changing climate. Cooling down the Earth by reducing CO2 emissions is a false statement because the Earth will continue to heat via its natural cycles which we as humans would be wrong to alter. As the negative side, I strongly believe that CO2 emissions are not directly responsible for climate change. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.09
      climate: 15.05
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    In other words, this point was not refuted. ... You know...

    Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

    Correlations My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change. Arguing the correlation exists does not win the point, as I agree it exists, but the correlation is not strong enough to mean it is the “main” factor in climate change, therefore unless you prove the correlation is significantly high (like PDO) you cannot win this debate. And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph. The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data. Nearly all satellites show little to negative warming in the last decade. And, as stated, the correlation in the last decade was only 0.02. Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t. The correlation is therefore broken and the minute correlation shows human CO2 emissions likely cannot play a major role. My opponent continues global warming is a problem, I agree with him I never denied its existence, but we differ on whether CO2 is the driving factor. And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. And the suns correlation was higher by .10 R points. In other words, this point was not refuted. To the naked eye the graph is appealing, but to one that can actually read statistics presented in round two the correlation is extremely weak. So the facts show CO2 is not the main driver of climate. Examine my opponent’s graph. I made it easy: I suck at photo editing so I just threw on some paint. Every place I put a line is where correlation broke. Look at it. We see 3 – 4 (depending if you slur the first one together) areas where correlation fails! So even using my opponents eye appealing data, its flawed. And when you use the facts, its flawed. Either way, its apparent CO2 is not a main driver of climate. I also could have added even more as the rise in temperture in the 30s-40s was faster then CO2. So its another break in correlation. It's a very weak correlation is what it gets right down too. My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point. Other factors You are arguing the main factor in global warming is CO2, which you have failed to do. I offered many other factors, which together can explain for all of the warming, occurred. This is blatantly obvious. I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. Clarification was not needed, at all. I have shown CO2 logically based on science is not the [main] driver of climate and that other natural forgings are much stronger then man-made emissions. In reality, I extend arguments here as you have failed to prove that the PDO, with a stronger correlation, cannot account for the warming or the sun, with a stronger correlation and as the only heat source of our planet could not cause the majority of this warming. My opponent’s case My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate. Conclusion: I have done a few things: Proven a CO2 correlation is extremely weak, and the correlation it has is not sufficient to prove it’s the main factor in the current climate I have shown, using my opponents data nonetheless, that the correlation is not as perfect as he makes it out to be and that the correlation in the last decade is almost zero – in other words no match at all. I have shown natural forgings have correlations sometimes of over twice the amount of CO2, and that this means it is likely a larger player in climate then CO2 is. Basically in sum: the debate is over whether or not CO2 is the main factor in the current warming, and my opponent has failed to prove it is the main factor, and has failed to prove why natural forgings cannot explain the rise. In that case, by logic, Con wins. You know and my opponent having the BOP and not having a case… that means I just win by default as he has not fulfilled his burden.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.02
      climate: 16.07
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 8.94
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? ......

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

    I accept this challenge. My first argument is that the governments of developed countries is not the only way we can solve this problem. There are things like individuals, organizations and more that can help. For example, fossil fuels like gasoline, when burned, indirectly cause climate change due to CO2. However, gas prices are going up, and people will switch to greener alternatives as they cannot afford gas. Plus, developed countries are not producing all the pollution in the world, but climate change is a global issue, and just developed nations is not enough. For example, the US actually produces less co2 than China, which produces 7,031,916 thousand metric tons per year, compared to the U.S. 5,461,014 thousand tons.[1] So, all developed nations do produce a lot of CO2, but a lot of CO2 is from other nations. Climate change is a global problem, but you are just thinking that developed nations should not only remove their impact, but also impacts from other nations. Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? (No personal attack intended.) "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." As I said before, as gas prices rise, they will get less profit as more people switch to other energy. Plus, you are talking about renewable energy, which is linked but a separate topic. "The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created." But lot's of CO2 are from developing countries! And you said only developed nations should do this, so they have to clean up someone else's mess. "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." Global warming has many deadly consequences, but this does not mean that developed nations should clean up someone else's mess. You said " Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created.", but this is not completely the fault of developed nations. In conclusion, all nations, not just developed nations, have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • CON

    And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty. Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates. Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.98
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 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 sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of...

    Climate Shift

    Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.96
      climate: 21.32
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.47 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 3.64
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    This is a major point that needs to be discussed. ......

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

    Yes I did read your link (http://www.epa.gov...). I read the way the EPA stated "As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of 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." I surely do not want to go back and forth on this point, but the EPA article that you continue referring to specifically states that it is unknown what contributions the human activity has to climate change. 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. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) 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. The emails show how scientists have been altering climate date and hiding information which proves global warming caused by man to be false. These emails included some from American Scientist John Holdren, a top adviser to the president and he wrote that scientists who opposed the theories of climate change were "amateurs." He referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide and decline" temperature figures. Yet another mentioned how he was bothered to release date that could challenge climate change. (http://climategateemail.com...) (http://www.eastangliaemails.com...) In Terms of the NASA link you posted, yes I agree they said there was record melting in 2008. This is a major point that needs to be discussed. 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. For some reason, global warming supporters find a year or two or three to be sufficient enough to produce a trend of warmth. 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? 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." There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist. There are questions of the EPA suppressing evidence of their finding. The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change. 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. I didn't expect to have to continue showing all this information on how global warming is yet to be proven and how your EPA records are more under question and uncertain than your statements represent. As we all know, the earth has been warming and cooling since its existence. There was an Ice Age about 22,000 years ago, then the earth warmed for a bit and started to cool again for the Little Ice Age which began warming again around 1680. There was no proof or even reason to believe the earth was cooling and heating for all those years due to carbon gases from humans. (http://canadafreepress.com...) This is where the "Hockey Stick" graph makes its entrance, around 1998. For those who are not familiar with this, it is a climate graph which is one of the initial pieces of information to start the global warming hysteria. This graph mapped out a zero increase in temperature over the past 1,000 years with a sudden spike starting in the 20th century. The research which produced this used tree ring data for the first 1,000 years of its study and then added modern temperature date for the 20th century. These tree rings were hand picked and often discarded if they did not conform to the uniformity as the others did. A dendroclimatologist (one who studies climate using tree rings) told the US Congressional Committee that, "...this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology." This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The hockey stick was eventually unmasked by one of the most basic forms of scientific testing we know today; the reproducibility test. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick attempted to reproduce this hockey stick and were unable to do so. They even requested date and formulas from Mann (the person who came up with the hockey stick in 1998) and he would not disclose the codes and formulas he used to achieve his results. This raised even more suspicion since the hockey stick was published work and the methods as to how the results were found were not being disclosed. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The US National Academy of Sciences appointed a committee to investigate this matter between McIntyre/McKitrick and Mann. Ultimately, they found in favor of McIntyre and McKitrick. They explained that they tried to reproduce the date themselves and while they could not reproduce the hockey stick Mann has suggested, they were able to reproduce the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick. (http://canadafreepress.com...) To date, Mann still refuses to disclose his formula and codes; very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today.

  • CON

    Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    The climate is changing, And I will argue this point from a geologic/anthropological perspective in the coming rounds. Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. Your discounting of authority is irrelevant to me. With this being said, I will save my arguments for climate change for the coming round. Round structure wasn't specified and I assume it's ok since you're doing the same thing.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.90
      climate: 20.97
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 3.93
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the...

    Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

    The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the only ways. Most industries that pollute are subsidized b\y the government. All we have to do is abolish the government and those industries will stop polluting. Nd we wouldn't even have to regulate anything.