Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewNuclear energy is 0-emissions; addresses climate change threat.
Nuclear energy does not emit carbon emissions in its inherent energy extraction process, although some carbon is emitted in the manufacture of plants, etc. This means it is a key weapon in the climate change fight. Dealing with the waste problem with underground storage is, therefore, also key in this fight.
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
The governments of the world need to wake up to the reality of man made global warming which is leading to climate change. The planet is getting hotter every decade and this is leading to more radical and extreme weather patterns. This is and will continue to bring about more droughts, More flooding, More storms and more natural disasters. This will not only kill people but also severely impact economies and put our societies at grave risk. 97 percent of the scientific community and all scientific authorities support the theory of man-made climate change. Therefore we must trust our scientists and the overwhelming body of evidence and take action to reduce emissions. We can use more renweable energy, Ban certain exhaust fumes, Eventually ban diesel cars, Put into place taxes on carbon and have stricter environmental controls. This will help to reduce our cause of global warming and thus is a necessary and workable solution to this very grave threat. Good luck to my opponent.
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.
Let"s start out with the "have to" part of the motion. While I agree with you that it invokes a moral obligation, I also see a second practical part in it. The practical part is, as I have described, the necessity to help in order for any of our own work against global warming to have any effect. If we switch our economy towards sustainable, clean energy this will, at least at the start, be more costly than just using coal and gas, which will make production more expensive. As the market goes to the lowest cost it will give those developing countries, which just have no other chance of building an economy that is stable as they lack the financial recourses, the incentive to fill the gap created with cheaper production on the costs of the environment leading in total to no positive effect for our climate. In addition to that point we have the problem of a growing population in those developing countries. As they will with time demand a similar standard of living to the developed world, it will again go on the costs of our climate. We can"t change this wish for a higher standard of living, which also brings us into the moral sphere. We can"t prevent this from happening, but we can prevent the growth of the population as, as we have always seen, an increase in the education and standard of living diminishes the growth in population. Those countries need to get to an acceptable standard of living to prevent an explosion in the population and harm to the environment. This increase in the standard of living can"t be achieved by the countries without help as they lack the financial capacities, which is why they need financial aid and this is especially important if we want them to do this economic growth it in a sustainable way. We need to create the incentive for them to do it in such a way. Now this is our moral obligation as we have always developed our wealth on the oppression of the weaker countries. The second part of our moral obligation lies in the fact that we are the cause of the major problem of climate change. Our behavior in the last centuries and also now is the reason for the development, which is why it is our obligation to pay the costs. If we don"t want other countries which develop now to use exactly the same way of developing their industry we have to pay for it, as we can"t just say that they aren"t allowed to do so, while we were. This is why both on a practical and a moral level we are obliged to pay for the development in the developing countries even though it both fights climate change. Now to your points. The first one is again that the foreign aid isn"t sufficiently effective as a means to improve their industry. While I have to agree in some cases, I have to object to the generalization. Foreign aid is the main reason many of the developing countries even have any stable economy and only with financial aid it is possible to build such an economy. While the industry that is established there is still in no way close to friendly to the environment, we can"t be surprised as I have explained above. We need to make the availability of new technology in this field better and also have to increase our financial aid in order for them to have any chance of using sustainable sources of energy in their industry. Your model of cutting aid won"t result in a benefit for the climate but rather in the inability to innovate from a now insufficient economy towards an industry that is sustainable. Also we have to be giving stronger incentives to direct the funds towards sustainability which hasn"t been done so far which is another reason for why we can"t expect results already in this direction. Your second point starts out self contradicting, but the argument is that due to other problems in the country the aid won"t be used to prevent global warming. I have to agree that as I have said before we have to increase the incentives for actually doing it as well as try to lower the cost of the technology. But also I think that the solution of the other problems is connected to the solution of the problem of climate change. If you have a poor population with a low standard of living in a country with a weak economy, the people will use what they can use in order to survive. The concern for the climate, while mostly having the biggest impacts right there in those countries, is still a secondary problem of the future that won"t be tackled if left by itself, as there are more urgent problems. This will stay exactly this way until a development is finished as all this time the least expensive mean will be taken in order to reach the goal of economic growth and better living conditions. Now if we want them to not do this we have to solve those problem which is always only possible if we allow economic growth in those countries and if we don"t want that growth to be on the shoulders of our climate, we have to pay the gap towards them being able to do it with clean energy and stress it with incentives. Therefore we need again an increase in foreign help, which, as I have explained above, is our duty to provide in order for them to build an industry that is clean and sustainable. To conclude I also think that it is a global problem but the main thing we can"t forget is that it is a global problem produced by the now developed countries and that if we wish for other countries to go through their development in a different way, we are the ones obliged to pay for it.
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
There is simply not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any dramatic climate change. The Earth's climate has changed in the past but this was due to volcanic activity. Volcanoes can expell a thousand times more CO2 than what humans can achieve. A volcanoe expells other sulpher based gases which cause a shielding effect in the upper atmosphere. This is what happened during the Dark Ages when sunlight was reduced and a mini ice age occurred. Human's are like microscopic organisms on the surface of the Earth. Our combined mass is insufficient to be able the affect the huge mass of the Earth. This is just a matter of understanding basic heat transfer science in relation to two objects of dissimilar size and mass.
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
My opponent doesn't understand basic physics and mathematics of heat exchange between two objects. One of these objects is the Earth which would be represented by a 100 kilometre beach of sand and humanity which would be accurately measured as 3 grains of sand. Now, Regardless of how much heat those 3 grains of sand produce, They are incapable of effecting the temperature of the 100 kilometre beach of sand. This is a logical conclusion which involves a small amount of commonsense. Ref - The Vostok ice Core and the 14, 000 year CO2 time lag. CO2 levels follow temperature. Temperature doesn't follow CO2. Thus, CO2 levels have nothing to do with climate but are just a result of a changing climate. Earth cycles are more likely to change climate. The Earth has a wobble which takes 32 thousand years for one full cycle. In 16 thousand years the Northern and Southern hemispheres will have opposite seasons to what they have now.
Human caused climate change is nonsense
Well, It looks like you need everything in triplicate or you don't believe it. You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Watts up with that? Website - "hide the decline" - worse than we thought We see the actual email with references to cutting off Keith Biffa's data and deleting many sections in the records including 1940's to 1960's. video - The in depth story behind a You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Watts up with that? Website - "hide the decline" - worse than we thought We see the actual email with references to cutting off Keith Biffa's data and deleting many sections in the records including 1940's to 1960's. video - The in depth story behind a climate fraud. There are many tricks that debaters use to fool people. One is supplying very short answers which don't address the issues in any depth.
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
Full topic: The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true or false is to dramatically reduce man made levels of Co2. We need to take drastic measures to reduce man made Co2 levels ASAP. I've become convinced of this due to the climate change deniers. Simply, put the climate change deniers are correct, there is not enough evidence. Therefore, we need to accumulate more evidence via experimentation. Thus far all we have done is endlessly discuss if climate change is real or false and collecting observation evidence. Empirical evidence is split into two grounds. A. Observation evidence B. Scientific experiments All I've seen is A, thus far. We need B, and we need to know soon. The only way I can imagine to test this theory of global climate change is via experimentation. We must take control and change a variable. I vote Co2 is the best variable. Now as Co2 as the variable we have two choices, to raise or lower Co2 levels. Considering it would be immoral to raise Co2 levels given the observation evidence, we can only lower Co2 levels. Since a small decrease in Co2 levels would be more difficult to determine, a large decrease in amount of Co2 produced by man made sources is the only solution. That way if climate change is caused by a confounding factor we will have a better chance of acknowledging that confounding factor and taking corrective actions. To recap, we need more evidence for whether or not climate change is true in the form of experimental evidence. Lowering man-made Co2 dramatically is the best and only moral option. Thanks for reading and accepting the debate in advance.
Humans cause climate changing
First, as Con have said, "in the Mesozoic era the climate was much hotter and dryer". It is true, but the important thing is that it was 248 million years ago. The climate had been changing slowly during millions of years, before the industry. While, after people invented factories, vehicles and different weapons, such as nuclear weapons, Atom Bomb, rockets and etc. the climate have been changing quickly and humans caused it. For example, when rockets launches, Atom Bomb and nuclear weapons are used, irreparable damage to the climate is caused immediately. Humans even change the weather as they wish. For example, China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue skies for the National Day parade. It happens in other countries, too. They try to change weather and get the desire result. But it has consequences, as on the next days there happened a storm. These examples, show that humans changed the weather, as they desire and damaged to the climate a lot. Second, it is true that "humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases", while humans cause the biggest amount of gases. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world claimed: "The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years." It proves that humans cause climate changing and they influences to it quickly than it can be naturally. To conclude, humans are the main creature that caused a big problems in climate changing and damage it during a short period of time. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
To conclude then, It has been duly proved throughout the whole debate that picking boogers indeed has a positive impact on our environment, On a global scale even as there are 7 + billions with a b beautiful booger picking souls out there who do nothing but help improving the climate on planet earth every time a booger bites the dust. A booger picking man Said "I have a plan" If we all just join in There will be so much win Climate saving it can
Anthropogenic global climate change.
Round four defense Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is unsaturated. III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. IV. Temperature is increasing. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. VI. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Fact: The scientific consensus used very high standards including being based upon a consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity. The climate scientists' findings were published in scholarly peer reviewed journals. Myth 1: The scientific consensus is an ad populum fallacy. Fallacy 1: The fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. People misuse fallacies all the time. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Wouldn't it be cool if you said "I am a millionaire" and it came true? "Scientific consensus What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population? There are two significant differences: Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth. Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.) " [17] Myth 2: The scientific consensus is groupthink. Fallacy 2: Misrepresentation, comparing past scientific consensus to present fails to take into account that today's standards are more robust than standards decades ago. This is like comparing a incandescent light bulb to a CFL (compact fluoride lamp) light bulb and claiming, the incandescent light bulb is an energy hog, therefore the CFL is an energy hog too. This is also jumping to conclusions. II. Co2 is unsaturated. Fact: Co2 is nowhere near saturation point. Co2 has been much higher in the past with much higher temperatures. Venus has much higher Co2 and has much higher temperatures. Myth: Co2 is saturated. Fallacy: Oversimplification. The height of which heat is escaping is rising. Meaning more heat is getting trapped in the lower atmosphere. Focusing solely on the air temperature absorption is missing the bigger picture that more air is getting warmed. The amount of heat escaping to space is decreasing. Think of your house, you can increase the heat by turning up the furnace or by better insulating your house. [18] Picture here: III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. Fact: Co2 increase greenhouse warming. More heat means higher evaporation rates due to molecules breaking surface tension easier when excited. Myth: There evaporation rate has not increased therefore heat has not increased. Fallacy: Cherry picking most likely. My opponent does not tell how he/she got the graph in figure three. Is this worldwide or over a single location? Some areas will become wetter while others drier due to changes in the climate. Since the vast majority of the Earth is Ocean, it is safe to say evaporation rates have increased. Again, my opponent's argument and graph is too vague for me to fully address. Another possibility is my opponent is measuring the ocean's height. In that case water that is warmer expands. My opponent is asking me to stab in the dark because he/she failed to make a clear argument. IV. Temperature is increasing. Fact: Temperature increasing is a well established fact. From direct measurements including weather stations to indirect measurements including Co2 rising, sea level rise, more heat waves and more intense heat waves, less hurricanes but stronger hurricanes, higher humidity, and many more indicators. Myth: Temperature is not increasing. Fallacy: Misrepresentation. First, figure 4 provides supporting evidence for my side of the debate. The overall trend is upwards. The problem with raw data without a trend line is it is difficult to detect the overall upwards trend in temperature. As anyone can see in figure 4 the highest temperature is past 2010. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. Fact: Science is a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is the reason why there is the scientific method and peer review journals. Science is the polar opposite of blind faith. This is calling black white instead of black. Myth: Science is blind faith. Fallacy: Appeal to emotion fallacy comparing science to religion. The idea is to give the audience a cheap jolt and hope they remember the myth. VI. Sources 17. http://rationalwiki.org... 18. https://skepticalscience.com...
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!
As a brief road map I will 1) Discuss the implications of the resolution, I will then 2) describe the global economic crisis and it's implications, then 3) I will discuss Franlinpoet's understandable concerns that he mentions above. Finally, I will end with an emotionless conclusion. Resolution reads, "The world should focus on climate change than on global economy." It's only safe to assume that this resolution is regarding now and not later and not forever. So the resolution is a call for action either for economic policies or environment policies to become the focus of the legislative groups of various nations. Thus it is not the job of either Franklinpoet or me to state that the economy or environment should always be the main focus. This debate is only focused on determining what governments should be focused primarily on in their upcoming legislative meetings. Should they begin the process of cooperating with scientists and cleaning our good, green Earth? OR Should they continue the process of repairing our damaged infrastructure and economies? And it is this valid question that begins our debate today. The Biding Shackles of the Economy " The global economy is in the worst shape since the dark days of 2009. Six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession. The U.S. economy is struggling again. And the economic superstars of the developing world — China, India and Brazil — are in no position to come to the rescue. They're slowing, too. " [1] 1) Europe is in a crisis in the status-quo, as illustrated through [2]: A) Spain. In the city Castilla La-Mancha sixty-nine percent of homes built in the last three years are still unsold. Their mega company Martinsa Fadesa declared bankruptcy at the dawn of the recession. Unemployment has risen by 425,000 people. Subsequently sales have fallen 9% and 18% with household goods. The Finance minister called it the worst national recession in a half century. B) Greece. Poor thing, their GDP is now 16% below the pre-crisis peak. 16% is astronomical. Their streets have been covered in riots. The political situation has been malicious and and has become literally violent. And with their wanting economy their carrying the rest of the Euro with them, this has a great effect on the entire continent. C) Portugal received the cold shoulder by Moody's investor when they knocked their rating from Aa2 to a dismal and greatly implicative A1. In 2011 the Prime Minister announced on television that the country had to take immediate steps due to the fact that their nation altogether was facing bankruptcy. D) Iceland. The government collapsed on January 27th, 2009. Enough said. The list goes on and on. The U.K., specifically Ireland, Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, were all hit very hard. The common denominator of all this is millions upon millions of people have lost their jobs. Once successful nations, like Iceland, have corroded within themselves. This is a global epidemic, as the same has happened in Asia. And this, this is happening right now. Not hypothetically tomorrow but visible through your window. Real. Factual. Tangible. 2) United States [3] The sucker that started it. I'm a huge fan of the Economist and a couple months ago they wrote a phenomanel analysis on America's situation. Basically, what it concluded is that America's middle-class is becoming swiftly non-existent. The reason being is they have abandoned their innovative, manufacturing roots. It has been dispersed to other nations, or other nations picked up the torch on such things like innovation (China, Japan.) The 2008 crisis only worsened the situation by making the dwindling of the middle class even more expediate. Without a middle class the economy of the United States is in big trouble. And the way global economy is set, intrinsically, places America as the influencer, hence why America started the Great Recession and it spread like a wild-fire to the rest of the world. If this problem is not fixed with a sense urgency then this Recession has no end in sight. [2] The middles class must be buffered if this recession is to have an end in sight. " In today's interconnected world, we can no longer afford to look only at what goes on within our national borders," IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said earlier this month. "This crisis does not recognize borders. This crisis is knocking at all our doors. If government establish the economy as the main priority then you solve for re-establishing innovation and infrastructure because with a healthy economy--healthy investment is inevitable. Investment pays for the scientist's job who is trying to stop the ambiguously quantified climate change problem. You solve for the economy then you easily solve back for the environment. The Franklinpoet Concerns The first thing I would like to mention is that there is still debates among people much more qualified than us on whether people are actually the cause of climate change. If we aren't then Franklinpoet has no solvency. So there's already uncertainty to his solvency with that matter. The second thing I would like to discuss is that Franklinpoet attempts to answer back for the economic crisis with his Zimbabwe analysis. Well actually he doesn't even solve for it, he just states if global warming happened in Zimbabwe then the economy would get even worse. So there is actually no solvency for the economy in Franklinpoet's paradigm, he just attempts to solve for one thing which probably won't happen hundreds of years from now, if that. But his plan is not comprehensive at all to the world's comprehensive problems. The third issue I would like to discuss, is who exactly is the enforcement in Franklinpoet's advocacy? I hope it's not government, as that process of cleaning the Earth, through gov., would be slowed down with so much red tape, it would be completely futile. So inevitably Franklinpoet's enforcement would be the scientists from the private sector. How's that private sector doing in today's economy? If you want to seriously combat the ambiguously quantified climate-change, then you need a lot of money and power, especially since you'd have to combat nations like China, who wants nothing to do with greenness. Right now, though, there is not alot of excess money to be had. Franklinpoet's advocacy is genuine and good and completely understandable but it's slightly putting the cart before the horse. In other words, you wouldn't try to cure a dog of cancer when it's choking on a bone. To warrant my claim here are the numbers, " Only 14% of those with a PhD in biology or the life sciences can find an academic post within 5 yrs. Pharmcos also have been consolidated and jobs slashed—a 300,000 job “bloodbath,” as described by one expert. Just 38% of new PhD chemists are employed. If you want to fix the environment, then give them more man and financial power, and that starts with curing the financial landscape. The harms of climate change that Franklinpoet lists are slightly entertaining because they are 1) homelessness, 2)Poverty, 3)Unemployment, 4)Private sector downfall. My advocacy solves for these harms, granted governments make the right choices when they do focus on the economy, but these are the exact harms that are occurring right now, in today's world by the global economic crisis. Conclusion So it comes down to this: Franklinpoet: Start working on the environment because if not, it could be devastating to economies, time period unknown. Bruce: Keeping working on economic solutions because our economies are currently going through devastation, and a healthier investment basis solves back for the environment. [1]http://www.google.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://hopeycopey.blogspot.com... *Blob, yes, numbers legit, albeit. I observed the same numbers from multiple sources.*
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change
Kind regards, no, I don't forfeit rounds, I'm just a little busy at the moment due to University. Final Round: First of all I would like to address my previous statement regarding the FAO report. While it most certainly provides evidence, it also is contradicted by many different sources. However, if my statement is read again, it clearly states that 'they', and not it, is to be trusted, meaning the other reports or apparent evidence used by 'Cowspiracy'. As for Pro's statement that "Again you assert wri.org is more trust worthy without proving it. Basically Con is stating that the World resource institute WRI is more reputable than the FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.", no, that is not what I am saying. Also, if you want to play the 'prove game', prove that your sources are trustworthy. That will bring us nowhere. The point to be addressed is that the FAO report, while the full report is seemingly not accessible, parts of it are, includes many sources of data potentially unrelated to to factory farming, such as deforestation and cropping. "Meat industry sources object to the methodology used in the UN report, notably that deforestation for livestock was included in the calculations. These sources point out that pasture-grass-feeding, such as is common in New Zealand, may lead to lower emissions attributable to livestock, despite the fact that methane and nitrous oxide from livestock make up half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions." (wikipedia) (http://maxa.maf.govt.nz...) As well as above, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (quoted from Wikipedia) found "In 2006, emissions sources contained within the Agricultural Chapters were responsible for emissions of … 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions." (currently being around 9%, as stated in round one, but unchallenged by Pro) (http://www3.epa.gov...). This, as stated in round one, is evidence for the U.S., a country with, as stated in the previous round, 99% animals being raised under 'factory farming' setting. This would mean that the U.S. could be taken as an example, meaning that, as in the U.S.'s case, factory farming being 99% of farming, yet only producing 9% of Greenhouse gases, which, by the way, is less than the U.S.'s transport emission, that factory farming by no means is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Besides, I would like to point to round one, where factory farming was clearly defined, with no objection of Pro, as "a system of rearing livestock using highly intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions.". This means that all of Pro's attempt to define all farming as 'factory farming' are non applicable. Otherwise we could define cattle, such as raised in Australia or huge parts of South America, which by all means can go wherever they want to on properties which are thousands of square kilometres large, as factory farming, because they are still under human control when mustered or 'belong' to humans.. Absolute nonsense. Factory farming is, as stated in round one already, animals being raised indoors, normally in small pens, in an attempt to decrease labour input and maximise output. Also, according to Pro, as the burning of the Amazon rainforest apparently should be counted as 'factory farming', practices such as slash and burn clearing of land for plantations are apparently factory farming as well. It is also to note that Pro has not submitted any facts supporting their thesis that 'factory farming' is the number one cause of man-made global climate change, other than the 18% number, that farming, as factory farming has not even been implicated, other than in the weak reasoning of an attempt to make all farming practices, seemingly plant production included, into factory farming. Conclusion: While Pro has neither provided a valid definition of 'Factory Farming', nor actually provided any evidence that factory farming actually is the number 1 cause of man made global climate change, Con has provided evidence against this. ' The most important factor in this debate is that Pro did not provide a link between the only evidence between the only applicable source used, the FAO report of 2006, which states that livestock creates 18% of Greenhouse gasses, however, Pro does not provide what amount of these 18% is actually 'Factory Farmed'. This means, that possibly the number of Greenhouse gases produced by non factory farmed animals, remembering that factory farming, as stated in round 2, makes up around 40% of livestock numbers. Using logical reasoning, this would mean that non factory farmed animals produce more Greenhouse gases than factory farmed ones by sheer number, also taking into consideration that in a free range farming environment more resources become wasted when compared to factory farming, possibly creating more emissions. Furthermore it needs to be considered that according to many other sources, as supplied by Con, agriculture does, potentially, make up 18% of emissions as the FAO report includes some controversial factors. Pro's inclusion of the Amazon rainforest example cannot be seen as evidence, as in no way does the Greenpeace source provided, as bias as it is, provide a link to 'factory farming'. In fact, all the images Greenpeace has provided display animals freely roaming smoke filled ground resulting in slash and burn, hardly being factory farming, other than some images of animals being drafted, which, once again, is a result of the opposite of factory farming. Factory Farmed animals do not have to be drafted and mustered. The source Pro provided about 51% of emissions created by livestock was already rebutted in round 2 and the comments, as the authors of the source are incapable of conducting simple mathematical calculations. Thus, finally, as Pro has not provided any convincing evidence, or in fact any evidence at all, that factory farming is the number one source of man made global climate change, I, Con, will have to remain with my conclusion posted in round one, that Factory Farming is not the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards for the Debate, thanks to all Readers and Voters, have a nice day!
Climate Shift
Climate shift is demonstrably real, we have evidence of climate shift happening several times during the history of Earth. We have geological evidence of glacial migration that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, where did they go? Perhaps all of the carbon emissions from cavemen roasting wooly mammoths (now extinct) caused global warming in the distant past. Perhaps it is an unavoidable cycle that isn't well documented because of the extremely long cycle length? We should be concerned with the unavoidable climate shift, each and every one of us should be deeply concerned. Be it man made climate shift or a natural cycle, it is still climate shift. Unfortunately those among us who realize that we need to learn how to live with minimal impact on mother earth are openly mocked as hippies, and those who prepare themselves for surviving some great calamity are openly mocked and tin foil hat wearing nutters. Meanwhile the great minds of our society are pointing fingers and making measurements trying to assign blame. And the great solution that has been presented is to carbon tax our way out of this mess, which of course can only be issued by the threat of force. I don't agree that anything is "resolved".
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." I have assumed no such thing. But Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting. I would like to point out 2 things wrong with Climate Alarmists' arguments: 1) There are a very large number of Climate and Climate related scientists that do not believe in, or are skeptical of Climate Alarmists assertions. One flaw in this particular branch of science is how the "community" is dealing with "discenters". Most of those who "deny" AGW are treated with Ridicule and Scorn, have their jobs threatened, and have simply opted to leave because of the treatment they receive. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... 2) To understand abnormal, we must first have the baseline for which the discussion can be built. In the Climate Alarmist v. Climate Denier argument, there are 3 critical pieces of information that have not been fully addressed: What is "Normal" or "Optimal" when it comes to Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate. How can we know what is "out of the ordinary" if what is "normal" is never exposed? Do we simply assume that the climate of the past 50, 100, 1000, years is "normal" and any deviation from that "normalcy" is "abnormal"? At what point do we say we have a good idea of what "normal" is? And what is "normal"? How about the period in our recent history where the Earth hit a point called "the Holocene Climate Optimum". It was between 4c and 6c warmer than our current temperatures today. Is this "normal"? Is it "optimal"? Or the Little Ice Age? Is that "normal" or "optimal"? Please define both NORMAL and OPTIMAL ... Mr. Merrill continues: "Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or 'ignoring every argument.'" When the BULK of an argument concentrates on perceived fallacies, without benefit of using verifiable sources to argue the points made, it is. For instance, Mr. Merrill perceived an "appeal to nature" fallacy but ignore that a great many things ARE natural. Like the fluctuations of climate, for which we are having this discussion. How is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Mr. Merrill does the same here, in this reply. He has stopped arguing the points of contention to spend his time dealing with perceived fallacies, as explained below. Mr. Merrill: "I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes." Ignored? Misrepresented? To your first paragraph (Atmospheric CO2), I responded with 6 of my own. I discuss everything from the positive effects of increased CO2 and Biomassing to the evidence that shows CO2 increases FOLLOW, not PRECEDE the Temperature Increases. I also discuss the lack of definition of "OPTIMAL" and question why events such as "warming", "wetting", "cooling" and "drying" are witnessed before the "industrial age" before MAN can be blamed for the anomalies. Instead of dealing with these issues, Mr. Merrill wants to "drop" this subject, "Could we perhaps call this a 'dropped point'?" Sorry, Mr. Merrill, I will not let you ignore the scientific facts that the climate is in flux, has been for millions (billions) of years, and will continue to be. Mr. Merrill continues: "Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart." The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. 650,000 years is only approximately .0143% of the geologic timescale available. See: http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill then misrepresents the facts in his statement, "The image from [32] 'NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus' shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years". The chart shows a change in temperature over the past 132 years. The last 17 years are shown in the far right side of that graph, which does, clearly, show a slowing in temperatures. See: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill continues: "... greenhouse gases." Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -- I have not taken issue with "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", I have taken issue with what the Climate Alarmists are calling "unprecedented global warming due to man's activity". Mr. Merrill: "we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature." Which may be true AND ignores the proofs given in my previous argument that Temperature has been shown to PRECEDE increases in CO2. The fact that CO2 increases AFTER the Temperature increases is interesting and should merit further study. The science is most definitely not settled. Further, Mr. Merrill, here and in [35] below, demonstrates an inability to draw parallels, "I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade." Finally, we note, Mr. Merrill, that you fail to deal with the other portions of my response to your arguments; the second paragraph, "Atmospheric Ozone", and the third paragraph, "Oceanic". Instead, he continues his fallacious denial, which I will now deal with: 35. "This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures." Alarmism does not good science make. 36. See [35] 37. "In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic." Mr. Merrill is ignoring the science which shows that higher concentrations of CO2 are not "bad" but "good" for the Biosphere. This goes to the NATURAL nature of Climate Change and the Earth's response to those changes. Ignoring the science to make a point is, well, a fallacy. 38, 39, 40. See [37] 41. "Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels." Correct. Because it is hard to claim, as Climate Alarmists do, "man made CO2 is causing warming" if in fact the warming comes BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Thank you for conceding that point. 42, 43, 44. Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. "but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog." Logical Fallacy. If the information presented is correct, credentials or other factors are irrelevant. 45. "Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures." Assumption. If changes have happened, are happening and will happen, there is little we can do to change or alter those changes. Especially in the LONG TERM, as is shown, previously, by taking ALL the information, not less than 1% of the information available. 46. "Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I have said exactly what I hope to prove. The science is there to back it up. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument, dealing with it might. 47. "Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone." Your attempt here is to ignore your own argument. In Round 2 you posted un-cited information that Ozone is one of the Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming. The science says this may be correct, and the science says the Ozone is on the mend, which removes this factor from the argument. 48. "but it's listed as a myth. " The only myth here is that CO2 causes warming, Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. 49. "Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal" Maybe Mr. Merrill can explain what "standard deviation" means? 50. "Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast." Mr. Merrill is using yet another Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. Mr. Merrill is ignoring the fact that Climate Alarmists have been using things like "melting ice caps" and "disappearing polar bears" for years to make their point (also a Logical Fallacy, as pointed out, "Appeal to Emotion"). Yet, this is proven incorrect, polar bear populations are well on the increase. I will take Mr. Merrill's response here to mean he agrees with this point, and move on. 51. See [50] 52. "It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]." Here Mr. Merrill ignores the actual evidence on the page cited. He uses a Logical Fallacy: Poisoned Well, because its a blog. On that page we find a reference to peer-reviewed science that states, "This suggests that this warming episode is mainly due to internal dynamics of the ocean rather than external radiative forcing.", http://goo.gl... Using Logical Fallacies in this way only hurts Mr. Merrill's arguments, not helps them. 53, 54, 55. See [37] 56. "This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade." Mr. Merrill either didn't read the whole article, or is hoping it will "go away" as there are charts that show data from the 1950s. That is far more than 8 years. The data of the last 8 years simply shows the trend, as with the last 15-18 years of Global Temperatures, to have slowed its warming trend. This is valid information, because as above, Mr. Merrill has denied that any such thing happened, when it has been shown that it has happened. See the posted charts above. 57. Mr. Merrill is again misrepresenting the facts of the article presented. The fact is, as the opening statement suggests, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." -- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change
Do not bring any mention of religion into this debate. This debate is about Climate change. 2. The United States Consitution does not allow the President to force homeowners to purchase Solar panels. It should be left up to the individual states. As I told you before, read the Constitution. 3. Who has the money to purchase a Tesla? A Tesla Model S according to its website would cost up to 69,000 dollars. Even with incentives and Tax Credits, 60,000 dollars. So are you going to force a family in poverty to buy one ? A Nissan Leaf would be more cheaper. If it does not stop in the middle of the road. 4 .My opponent asserts that if we spend all this money on solar panels and such, global warming will eventually stop and the economy will prosper. Solyndra was a company that created solar panels. According to Bloomberg Magazine, Solyndra received 535 million dollars in Government loans. Our Taxpayer dollars. Then, Solyndra went bankrupt. All our Taxpayer dollars went down the drain. Those dollars could have been used to improve the economy. 5. How many jobs will be created ? The Keystone Pipeline will bring thousands of Jobs. Solar Panels, not sure.
Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
if anyone cares in short my arguments were going to play devils advocate just a little and claim morality does not exist then as a secondary argument in case the first was not convincing; if morality exist it does not exist for a political state or governing body of any-kind, the idea of morality is an individual concept at best. and should that look like a terrible argument I would further still have one more back up case to retreat to; should developed countries have moral obligations at all, its certainly not to control the weather. That's just stupid sounding. last time I checked project H.A.R.P. was still considered just a conspiracy theory http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... . the government does not have the power alter global warming or what the scientific establishment is talking about these days if you actually have been paying attention to the climate change news is that we are headed for a general global cooling, possibly to lead to another ice age. when you consider it all together it really seems like the the gun was jumped with predicting the earth was going to become much hotter because we drive cars and power plants burn coal, and that the same gun is being jumped with global cooling too. The earth goes through cycles its really not that scary.
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
I will point out the flaws in Mr. Merrill's arguments: This debate is entitled: "Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community" To that end, Mr. Merrill offered a simple challenge, but no definitions or ground rules for the debate. Because of that failure I offered definitions to clear up the "Anthropogenic Global Warming v. Global Warming" debate, and offered some of the arguments of AGW Alarmist and several Sources that argue against those claims. The rest of Mr. Merrill's writings largely ignore the argument, taking us from 20 points of contention to only 2. I then thoroughly deal with those 2 points of contention in Round 2, and reintroduce one previous point from Round 1, because Mr. Merrill did not address it. In Round 3, Mr. Merrill then, admittedly, misrepresents some data while dealing, again, with only 2 points of contention. Seeing Mr. Merrill's unwillingness to deal with the great many issues affronting AGW Alarmists, I provide several links that deal with his original claims; there being a lack of support for AGW Denial, and I reiterate one specific point of contention, and then deal with 22 of his specific claims. Mr. Merrill then changes tactic and provides some excuses as an attempt to deal with the Politicization of Climate Science. Mr. Merrill also provides 8 sourced quotes from AGW Alarmists/Activists. I replied with 9 sourced quotes of AGW Deniers and I point out a group of 13 ACTIVIST Scientists, 8 of whom worked on the report for the IPCC, and I gave a list of 10 Scientists who have left various groups (including the IPCC) over AGW "Science". Mr. Merrill does not deal with any of what was presented in Round 4, but instead, in Round 5, opts to try to convince the audience; using logical fallacies and confusing the definitions of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming. I believe I have show there is great support for Climate Denial in the scientific community; that the AWG Alarmist community is corrupted by politics and activism. Mr. Merrill wanted a 20:1 ratio of scientists; AGW Supporters v. Deniers. Someone would have to verify the actual count and remove the duplicates from all sources, as they undoubtedly contained duplicate researchers, but lets just make this easy: Mr. Merrill started out with 25 AWG supporting sources with a total of about 200 Authors. This is an average of 8 AWG Supporting Scientists per source. In a sample of 21 of my links (from Round 2), I found 29 peer reviewed papers including about 150 authors, for an average of about 7 authors per paper. This nets nearly a 1:1 (8:7) ratio of scientists who do and do not support AGW. Based on that alone I met and beat Mr. Merrill's challenge. This only leaves Mr. Merrill to deal with the 20 points of contention, of which he only tries to deal with 5. I believe I understand why Mr. Merrill refuses to deal with all the points of contention, or any of the support for natural and normal Global Warming: In the 4th round, I provide an additional link to this peer reviewed study, http://oss.sagepub.com... , which shows that a great many scientists are skeptical of AGW (I did not use this in my assessment of the 21 links in Round 2). I already pointed out how Mr. Merrill failed to deal with ANY points made in the 4th round. Therefore, the only conclusion I can make is; the support just isn't there in the quantity (and/or quality) Mr. Merrill would like or need to prove his assertions. In other words, his lack of dealing with the points of contention is proof his original assertion is wrong. Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, I was not arguing against Global Warming, as he asserts (Logical Fallacy: Straw Man). As I presented, Global Warming is a natural and normal process that we experience coming out of the last Ice Age (we are in an Intraglacial period, which Mr. Merrill also ignores). I have argued against Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Science Alarmism and Activism. I have provided an abundant number of sources against it, including several links to the data itself. And a great many scientists who are "AGW Deniers" simply by doing research that denies the Establishment's supposed "consensus". Review of the Points of Contention: Mr. Merrill claims: There is little support in the scientific community for AGW Denial: Claim proven false. CO2 causes Atmosphere warming: Claim proven false; Warming precedes CO2. Ozone: Ozone is repairing, not causing AGW. CO2 is warming the Oceans: Claim is Unclear, but the evidence, as provided, isn't showing Oceanic Warming. There is no Alarmism or Activism in the Climate Science Community: Claim proven false. Claims Mr. Merrill does not deal with: CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are today: Claim proven. CO2 levels are beneficial: Claim proven. Earth has natural mechanisms for dealing with increased CO2: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Cyclones: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Wildfires: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Arctic or Antarctic ice: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Polar Bears: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Sea Level: Claim proven. Climate Change is normal and natural: Claim appears to have been proven. There is a difference between "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and "Global Warming": Point proven. There is no "consensus" among scientists on this subject, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There is uncertainty, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There are other theories, largely ignored, for the observed Global Warming: Point proven. The rest of Mr. Merrill's Round 5 post was a poorly formatted table, where he, again, misrepresents the data, for instance: Example 1: Organization: heartland.org Authors / Researchers: 1 Scientific Accreditation: N AGW Acknowledgement: Y Heartland is a strong opponent of AGW, and proponent of Natural and Normal Global Warming. Therefore they do not "acknowledge" AGW. Did Mr. Merrill misread? Example 2: Organization: National Interagency Fire Center Authors / Researchers: Organization Scientific Accreditation: Established AGW Acknowledgement: Off Topic Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, this is very much "on topic" as the claim by the IPCC and Climate Alarmists is how AGW will make conditions more amenable to more fires that do more damage. The Observations do not support this conclusion. And the list goes on. I estimate I have about 2000 characters left in this reply, but I will not torture the readers with a full accounting of Mr. Merrill's latest attempt to avoid the discussion. This list as provided shows one of Mr. Merrill's greatest flaws: he takes things in a vacuum. Each point, in and of itself, is NOTHING without the rest of the information provided. For Example: CO2 concentrations are increasing. History must be observed: what has happened in the past? Has CO2 ever been this high? Does CO2 cause warming, or does CO2 come after the warming? Biosphere reactions must be observed: what happens when CO2 increases? What happens to plants? What happens to animals? What happens to the atmosphere? What happens to the oceans? Yet, with each point of contention that Mr. Merrill attempted to deal with, he is unwilling or unable to take into account all the information available. Therefore his arguments are very narrow in scope and shallow in content. In any case, Mr. Merrill, it is unfortunate that you spent most of your 50,000 characters avoiding the discussion. I was hoping to see new evidences, new information; and I was really hoping for a detailed and supported argument about the lack of support for AGW. Instead, I find myself disappointed by the avoidance, the abundance of Logical Fallacies, the lack of an actual argument, and the failure to follow good debating decorum. Good luck to you in whatever further arguments you decide to undertake; from my experience here, you are going to need it.
Protests have drawn attention to climate issues
Although there has been some attention focussed on the Camp for Climate Change the main press 'attraction' has been the protests outside bank and the antipathy towards city workers and capitalism in general. As usual the sensationalist press wants to cover violence rather than peaceful protest and with scuffles breaking out at Bank the climate protestors efforts have been overshadowed.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
I am going to take manbars advice and just turn this into a he said she said debate. I believe my opponent is irrational. I say this because I have proven that Hydrogen will never be a fuel source for the world to lower Co2 levels. He continues to cling to and defend the writings of a book called the "Hydrogen Economy" I will tell you what the GNP of a hydrogen economy will be "0" And then my opponent goes on to believe the rest of what this man says even though the entire premise of the book is based on a complete fraud. Hydrogen is a novelty and will never be an alternative fuel source, I have proven this categorically and irrefutably but my oppenet still defends it. This is an irrational act, a complete inability to accept the truth and the laws of physics. With that said there is no other research or science that will be acceptable other than what supports his agenda, no matter how flawed or misleading or taken out of context. His source are the words of a god and mine are all just big piles of crap that aren't even worth considering because of some political reason and the content is obviously bought and paid for by some big oil company or someone with an agenda. But of course his sources are all absolute fact. Tigers are in the woods - tigers hate noise - I make lots of noise -there are no tigers in the woods. Co2 exists - the planet is warming - Co2 levels increase - Co2 causes warming. I have credible peer review research that says Co2 levels lag or only increase if the planet warms and then decrease when it cools. There is no credible evidence to prove that Co2 causes the planet to warm, only speculation. We have addressed cleaning up the environment and have spent billions of dollars doing it. Catalytic converters for cars, scrubbers for coal burning power plants, Lighter cars with better fuel economy, I could go on and on and on. You need to bitch at the rest of the world as we are the only country in the world that requires catalytic converters on their cars. You say we need cars that run on alternative fuel sources. Got news for ya they have all been built Hydrogen, Electric, methane you name it its been done. Only problem is no fuel to put in them. I will leave that responsibility on your shoulders and all of the rest of the environmentalists because you want to cut oil production before you have even found an alternative. And since you are going to make the rest of the world suffer by artificially inflating gas prices and making everything else cost more and there by liming everything and destroying the economy. I think the least you could do as an environmentalist is suspend your billion dollar ruse tax increases disguised as carbon credits and pay for all the research out of your own pockets. What is more likely using "Occam's Razor" All of the glaciers are going to melt if man does not cut Co2 emissions. There have been 100,s if not 1,000's of Ice ages and warming periods this is just another cycle and there is nothing we can do about it. Water vapor represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses Co2 represents at the most 2% Co2 is the primary factor for the planets warming trend, Not likely Melting glaciers lag behind warming trends by 100 years there is no correlation between Co2, glaciers and the planets current warming trend Climate researchers predicted in the 1970's that the planet would plunge into another ice age if something wasn't done. I guess we are saving the planet from another ice age by burning fossil fuels. Climate researchers record for accurately predicting future climates "O" Now all of the sudden 100% perfect accuracy and irrefutable. The answer to the title of your debate is simple: impose your environmental agenda on the world at any cost which is the current course of the environmental agenda and be damned the people and the suffering it will cause in the name of saving the world. My view on the title: Increase oil production to keep people and world economies going and do what we can if anything to look for alternatives and offer Gov't funded prizes to people and corporations who can come up with viable Ideas that will work instead of demonizing everyone and wasting money on pie in the sky P.R stunts like Hydrogen powered cars. There is no looming threat and the world is not going to suffer from these ridiculous predictions made by environmentalists and everyone else in the global warming dooms day agenda. I predict in 5 years that in third world countries that people who admit to being an environmentalist will have to ware a bullet proof vest. The environmentalist agenda is already hurting my ability to provide for my family by not allowing us to to drill for more oil on our soil causing oil prices to be artificially high. I can assure you of one thing, Nobody will care about the environment if they are forced to live in the conditions that dooms day environmental predict for the future if they have to live that way today, which is the path that is being taken by environmentalists today. Their agenda is going to back fire when people start dying in third world countries and they will have nobody to blame but them selves and god help you all if your dooms day predictions don't come true while Co2 emissions increase over the next 20 years. They will increase because the population will increase and more Co2 will be produced. Unless of course the real agenda of environmentalists is wholesale genocide by starvation. I would ask my opponent not to list any sources in his rebuttal as they are just as worthless as mine. Climate research is not science it is a political view point, No more time or money should be spent studying the climate it is a colossal waste of taxpayers money.
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.
"In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature" This statement is false. In the graph of graph of 450000 years and the graph of 1850-present the relationship between CO2 is different. What's different is that CO2 and temperature start rising simultaneously when before they didn't. It's also interesting to note that the"unimportant" perfluorotributylamine gas started to be produced in the Mid-20th century is only a decade or two off of the time when global temperatures started rising more drastically. The last peak is actually quite different. It shows that the temperature started to rise less rapidly and then it suddenly started rising at a much higher rate when you look at it closer up in the 2nd graph. "The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation." Actually this graph is not pure speculation. This graph was created from data taken from a supercomputer which modeled the climate using all available knowledge. So it should be taken quite seriously. In addition the red line so closely following the actual temperature is good evidence that it is not pure fiction or speculation and is actually likely to be quite reliable.
