PRO

  • PRO

    9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to...

    Climate shift

    I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-shift/1/
  • PRO

    Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a real...

    Climate Change Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report

    Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a real and present danger in the United States according to a government report issued Tuesday.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/white-house-climate-change-report
  • PRO

    No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will...

    Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

    Everything that I am saying about global climate change or global is not political. Some of it is like proposed solutions are but the facts are the facts. You seem to preach about all of this evidence but I have failed to see any specific source. Citing just a press blog of a bunch of studies is not a proper citation and is not within context. What is your scientific training? When was the last time you took a class or attended a lecture about climate and our world? For me it was just two weeks ago. I don't think you have the credibility or the knowledge to determine what science is garbage and what is not. Catalytic converters have solved the smog problem. However this has come at the cost of lower fuel efficacy, removal of rare metals to produce it, and the recent discovery of nitrous oxide being released. I don't have a solution because I am not a engineer. I don't have the slightest notion where to start. I think I did provide peer reviewed sources. The books, the government websites didn't that do the trick. I mean you certainly didn't have anything to refute any of those claims or at least for the stuff you can read. Plus you provided very few sources yourself. Just links to blogs and a press page for a opposing political viewpoint. Are you an expert to determine what is a waste of taxpayers money. What about the war on drugs or the war in Iraq or no child left behind. Now those are wastes of tax payers money. Our government wastes far too much money on other things rather than climate change. "The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics." Science only settles itself when it reaches a conclusion. Right now the conclusion is that we are injuring the planet and ruining our chances for survival. No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will still be around. However we might not be. They are only supporting the movement because they believe their data has proven that is the correct choice. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu... What about these scientists. You have to go down to Annex 2. Really when it comes down to it you have provided very little sources, failed to refuted many of my claims, and failed to establish and logical connection. I mean you run around claiming that all of these scientist who are against you are somehow wrong in their data and presentation. Do you even have a college degree? Right now I am trying to finish mine in history and environmental conservation. Really though I do envy you. It must be incredibly nice to be so ignorant of what is truly happening in our planet and government. But of course you with your infinite wisdom knows better I'm sure.

  • PRO

    Moreover these same places are the countries that have...

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

    It is the developed world that has the capability to combat climate change. It is they that have most to cut per capita. More importantly it is these developed countries that have the research capabilities to come up with the necessary technology to make the economy greener, to produce renewable energy, to mitigate against the effects of disasters. Moreover these same places are the countries that have the finance available to fund these activities; not only funding the research into the solutions but also the financial resources to put them into action all around the world. Poor countries turn to the powerful financial centres such as London and New York to finance large projects, the same will be the case with projects to mitigate climate change. Finally these countries have the expertise to put these new inventions and projects into practice; they have the experts to work out the best places to build, to advise on building, and make sure the project does not have unintended side effects. As the nations with the greatest capability, developed nations have an increased responsibility to act.

  • PRO

    Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources;...

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

    My thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I look forward to a fascinating dialogue. I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest. Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc.; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc. C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change. C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms. P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in.[3][4] 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk...

  • PRO

    Authors: 17 10. ... I look forward to having this debate.

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    Political skeptics of climate change often claim that scientists are divided on the issue, or even that most scientists are deniers of climate change. I take the position that most scientific articles that discuss climate change acknowledge or conclude that it exists. In statistics, an "unusual event" occurs less than five percent of the time, or once out of twenty. If my opposition finds one credible scientist or study that concludes against climate change for every twenty I find that acknowledge it, he will win this debate. Here is my opening list: 1. "Turtle mating patterns buffer against disruptive effects of climate change" Proceeds of the Royal Society (2012) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... Authors: 8 2. "Monitoring EU Emerging Infectious Disease Risk Due to Climate Change" ScienceMag (2012) http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/41/336-6080/pdf/418.full.pdf Authors: 5 3. "Biodiversity ensures plant"pollinator phenological synchrony against climate change" Ecology & Organismal Biology (2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... Authors: 6 4. "Climate change: How do we know?" NASA (2013) http://climate.nasa.gov... Authors: Undefined Count (NASA) 5. "Evaluating the effects of climate change on summertime ozone using a relative response factor approach for policymakers" Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com... Authors: 12 6. "Climate Change Effects on Vegetation Distribution and Carbon Budget in the United States" Ecosystems (2001) hhttp://link.springer.com... Authors: 4 7. "Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999" ScienceMag (2003) http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 8 8. "Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria" Journal of Paleolimnology (2004) http://link.springer.com... Authors: 3 9. "Effects of climate-driven primary production change on marine food webs: Implications for fisheries and conservation" Global Change Biology (2012) http://espace.library.uq.edu.au... Authors: 17 10. "Beyond climate change attribution in conservation and ecological research" Ecology and Organismal Biology (2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... Authors: 7 11. "The Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change on North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks" American Meteorological Society (2013) http://journals.ametsoc.org... Authors: 4 12. "Revisiting the urban politics of climate change" Environmental Politics (2013) http://www.tandfonline.com... Authors: 2 13. "Perception of Climate Change" Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2012) http://www.pnas.org... Authors: 3 14. "Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems" Annual Reviews (2012) http://www.annualreviews.org... Authors: 14 15. "Climate System Response to External Forcings and Climate Change Projections in CCSM4" American Meteorological Society (2012) http://journals.ametsoc.org... Authors: 11 16. "The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?" ScienceMag http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 2 17. "Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change" Nature (2012) http://www.nature.com... Authors: 25 18. "Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise" Nature (2012) http://www.nature.com... Authors: 10 19. "An integrated biophysical and socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: The case of a New Zealand dairy farming system" Environmental Modelling and Software (2012) http://www.sciencedirect.com... Authors: 4 20. "The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and Implications for Climate Change" Annual Reviews (2012) http://www.annualreviews.org... Authors: 5 21. "A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems." Nature (2003). http://www.nature.com... Authors: 2 22. "Extinction risk from climate change" Nature 2004. http://www.nature.com... Authors: 19 23. "Ecological responses to recent climate change." Nature (2002). http://www.nature.com... Authors: 9 24. "Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security" Science (2004). http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 1 25. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" ScienceMag http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 1 Assuming no overlap between authors and papers, these 25 references describe the opinions of 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real. Assuming all 25 of these are credible, my opposition may cite 2 scientific studies, or the opinions of 37 credible scientists, to invalidate my assertion climate change denial is unusual in the scientific community. I look forward to having this debate.

  • PRO

    But since you have just provided other forms of action...

    Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

    I'm confused. You don't seem to actually be opposing my motion that "governments need to take radical action to combat climate change". What I did in my opening statement was gave a few suggestions about how governments could combat climate change. Instead of actually disagreeing with me, And arguing that governments shouldn't take action, You merely stated that there are other ways of doing it. I agree. There are lots of options. Thank you for your suggestions. But since you have just provided other forms of action instead of challenging the principle of taking action, Is this really a debate? We don't seem to have any disagreements. You're proposal to combating global warming is patently radical government action - ending government subsidies of polluting industries. So, I'm glad to see that we disagree nowhere.

  • PRO

    Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: opening arguments (Thou shall not refute current round) Round 3: refutation of opponent's Round 2 argument. Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire. Any sources used must be linked to directly. Linking to WWW.climate.com will not be considered quality sourcing unless you link DIRECTLY to a specific article within the webpage. (WWW.climate.com was just an example.) As Pro I shall argue as Resolved above. As Con (if you accept) you shall argue in support of man made global climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
  • PRO

    The Trump administration will drop climate change from a...

    Trump will drop climate change from US National Security Strategy

    The Trump administration will drop climate change from a list of global threats in a new National Security Strategy the president is due to unveil on Monday.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/trump-lay-out-national-security-strategy
  • PRO

    The idea that some countries are more to blame than...

    "Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change

    The idea that some countries are more to blame than others for causing global climate change may be true, but it distracts from the more important and just cause, which is for the world to come together to solve the problem.

CON

  • CON

    First off, I hope for a productive debate. ... Please be...

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

    First off, I hope for a productive debate. Please be sure to use legitimate sources to back your argument up and I will do likewise. Let's agree, What is climate change? Rising ambient temperatures? Holes in the ozone? Rising sea levels? Increase in greenhouse gases?

  • CON

    There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global...

    Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

    Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point. "CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise" There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics. Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise" All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.

  • CON

    This is simply not the case, And this would discount any...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    A couple interesting statements Cumulative sea level, According to the EPA, Has risen 8 inches since 1880. This is a primary indicator of climate change, Whether it’s caused by anthropogenic activity is debatable. Smaller low-level islands are being submerged by the rising sea level, And not necessarily by volcanos. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to increase surface temperature, Here an on other planets. Response to my opponent He stated, Among other things, Data gathered from islands or areas near volcanos or the ring of fire is invalid. This is simply not the case, And this would discount any data gathered from the pacific rim including his own reference. On the logarithmic effect of Carbon Dioxide Our production of CO2 has been increasing exponentially, With a linear effect on temperature. So, While the impact of CO2 lessens after a certain point we will continue the linear increase of mean global temperatures due to our proportionally increased CO2 production (assuming nothing changes). On Antarctica Antarctica is melting, That much should be apparent. According to some estimates, The ice is melting six times faster than it did 40 years ago. When ice melts it briefly cools around it’s surroundings, Think about an icecube in a cup of water. This means Antarctica’s temperature will not necessarily be consistent with the rest of the world, And will in some cases get sporadically colder as large chunks of ice melt. So, With my opponents theory, He himself has provided evidence for climate change. If the earth relies upon Antarctica for cooling, And Antarctica is melting, Then global warming is causing climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
  • CON

    However, uncertainties associated with this statement...

    global climate change is human caused

    "It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before." -According to the EPA: "Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by between 1.0 and 1.7�F since 1850 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006)." Now, the problem with this is that there was not a decline, rather a rise, in CO2 emissions between 1945-1975, so it is nearly impossible to pin the blame on any one factor, particularly humans. The EPA also states that: "Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time." This all occured BEFORE the industrial revolution, and before humans could possibly have any significant effect on global greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, though there is confidence within the scientific communit, there is not enough evidence to assign human fault in recent climate change: "Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time." That's just referring to the last 25 years, and discounting the drop in climate between 1945-1975. "Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily." -Well, thanks for asking what I think. I think the Earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling. I believe the Eearth has natural elements which control the percentages of greenhouse gases in it's atmosphere which regulate the temperatures between cooling periods (ice ages), warming periods (like now), and stable periods. There is enough evidence to suggest that humans are a contributing factor in a significant rise in the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but the sharp rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not coincide with the slight rise in global mean temperature. "This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming." -The "greenhouse effect" is a GOOD thing. Any planet with an atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect"... otherwise the Earth would be like the moon. Global warming is also a GOOD thing. Can you imagine what the Earth would be like if it wasn't naturally insulated??? "Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming." -You didn't prove this, you simply stated this. Even if you were right, you are now contradicting your original statement. A "huge factor" is not en exclusive cause as you suggested in your statement: "Humans are causing the rise in global temperature". It also is contradictory to the entire statement: " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." Here are a few points you have failed to prove: -Humans are causing the rise in global temperature (Not true. The natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet, our current place in the warming/cooling timeline, and other natural anomalies are at least mostly responsible for any significant rise in global temperature- even by the estimates of the most staunch global warming scientists) -Humans are causing global warming. (Not true. This is completely false and impossible. Humans are not greenhouse gases, nor are we a part of the atmosphere. We are not the Sun that shines on the earth, we are not the ocean that traps and releases CO2 according to mean global temperatures, and we are not a part of hundreds of other natural factors that create the beneficial process of global warming) Now, for those of you who are too liberal and hardheaded to read a debate before voting on your own opinion- I am not saying greenhouse gas emissions should not be regulated. I am not saying that the global temperatures WON'T rise to higher levels, and I am not saying that humans do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. What I am saying is that the environmentalist position is misunderstood by many, and thus causes conservatives to disagree with and dismiss the issue of global warming. We must address the issues that are facts- greenhouse gases are required to promote the natural occurence of global warming. Greenhouse gases have risen by more than 38% in the past 100 years. Even if we cannot personally account for that 38% increase, we have the power to regulate further increases so that we may better aide in the stabilization of the presence of greenhouse gases so as to prevent the POSSIBILITY of an alarming increase in global temperatures. Stop the fearmongering and deal with the issues according to the facts (that applies to conservatives and liberals alike).

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/global-climate-change-is-human-caused/1/
  • CON

    Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand. Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument. Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can. Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing) Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period) Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s. Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined. Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007) http://i0.wp.com... Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007) http://zfacts.com... Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere. Cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other variables in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong. Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong (see earlier argument for graphs) Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic. In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct. Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote. To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus. Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing: Here is an article saying the same thing: http://www.forbes.com... Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win. I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./8/
  • CON

    When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on...

    Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

    Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...

  • CON

    2) Global warming is man made. ... I trust the voters...

    Climate Shift

    Pro has accused me of insulting him, I have done no such thing. Quite the opposite has been demonstrated by pro. Twice he has made comments focused on my person and not the argument at hand. "What a surprisingly short response" "What a rude and poorly thought response" Perhaps I should not have accepted this debate, but after seeing how Pro had attempted to set up a "slam dunk" format that included 2 out of 3 points that are impossible to argue against. 1) global warming is real. I reiterate that the FACT we do not currently live on a frozen planet is impossible to argue against. The FACT that ice age specialized species such as the wooly mammoth are now extinct because the ice age has ended can NOT be argued against. Pro's first point does not actually require intellectual debate. 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. This is equally irrelevant as Pro's first point. Regardless of the cause of climate change, be it man made or a natural cycle, it is our instinct to survive. This point is stating the obvious. In closing I wish to reiterate that this debate's only arguable point was #2, is climate change man made. I accepted this debate anyway in an attempt to overcome the obvious "slam dunk" framework that Pro had stacked in his/her favor. Furthermore Pro's entire argument about point #2 was based upon a consensus that doesn't exist unless you exclude 66% of published papers on this issue thereby cherry picking your statistics. The huge wall of info graphics and other data provided by Pro amounted to a fear mongering lecture of pseudo scientific prophecy. We don't even have accurate climate change models that predicted the 20 year pause in global warming, until after it was already observed and we adjusted our old models to account for this new information. Because of this, Pro's predictions about the year 2100 can even be taken seriously nor are they relevant to the only arguable question in this debate. Is climate shift man made... I trust the voters will see through Pro's attempt to manipulate their emotions with prophecy of doom.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
  • CON

    First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero...

    Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change

    I understand the argument. First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but climate change is also immediate and will take much longer to resolve. Finally, I would also like to state that the solutions for climate change coincide with the solutions for poverty. Just as an example, the Tesla Power Wall allows consumers to store energy that is collected by solar panels, and use it anytime they want. This will prove to be extremely useful for underdeveloped areas which are not anywhere near a power grid. In reference to that statement, I argue that solving the climate change issue first would be more beneficial to the human race than attempting the vice-versa option which you are arguing. While I agree that educating people will lead to the reduction of global climate change, I think that by the time every underdeveloped country catches up in education, it will be too late for the earth. With that, I do believe that global climate change is a greater issue than poverty, and that focusing attention on that would be better for the human race.

  • CON

    Education: The act or process of imparting or acquiring...

    Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change

    I thank my opponent for this opportunity. I will be arguing against the statement that "Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global climate change." I will begin by defining my terms and clarifying my argument: Poverty: The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. Education: The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. Hunger :A compelling need or desire for food. Greater: Unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions. Issue: A point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law. Climate change: A long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature. All definitions were directly quoted from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com... The context of all key terms and words should be understood otherwise I will further elaborate. When the instigator refers to the issue of education I am assuming that they are talking about the lack of free education in specific countries. Also, I assume that hunger is an Issue that is attached to poverty as a result. With that being said, I understand that lack of education and hunger are typically effects that are caused by poverty. I am arguing against this claim because I do not believe that it is true. I do believe that poverty is a serious issue. I do believe that every country should allow free education through the 12 grade. I also believe that hunger and death from malnutrition are Important issues. But, I argue that none of these three issues are as important as Climate change. Here's why: Poverty, and the issues surrounding it such as hunger and education effect a select few. Climate change effects every single person living on Earth and every single person who ever will live on Earth. That is my argument, I look forward to this debate.

  • CON

    You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. ... In the...

    The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

    You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. You have to choose specific technologies and specific firms that make those technologies to invest in, and we all know how the government picks its investments. https://en.wikipedia.org... The connected will get the money, rather than who has the best idea. In the private sector, if your company can make more money, you'll find investors. So I say stop subsidizing oil, let a few more years go by, alternative energy will already be cheaper without Uncle Sam spending any of his money, and climate change will effectively resolve itself.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-needs-to-do-much-more-to-combat-climate-change/1/