Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewNew UN climate change report says just 12 years till life on earth hits point of no return — again
According to an alarming new report by a U.N. panel of scientists, humans have just 12 years to get their ecological affairs in order before the environment — and climate change — hits a critical tipping point.
Trump doesn't believe U.S. government predictions of huge economic losses from climate change
President Trump on Monday said he doesn’t believe his administration’s new report that predicted climate change would shave 10 percent off the U.S. economy by the end of the century.
Humans cause climate changing
My response in the second round was that this Era STARTED 248 million years ago, as I thought that the time when it started is more important than the time when it ended, because he wrote about DURING the Mesozoic Era. (I wrote it to explain my response). Second, no matter whether it was 248 million years ago or 65 million years ago, the fact is that it was million years ago and climate changed during these long period of time. My opponent wrote "during the last 2 BILLION YEARS the climate in the Earth has been fluctuating between..." It shows that climate was changing not in short time such as 2000 years, it was changing during 2 BILLION YEARS, which is very long period. The fact is without humans affect, climate changes slowly, during billions of years. However, humans' affect changes the climate quickly. Look to the cite http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... especially to the subtopic "Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate". There is a chart where it is appeared how climate changes with and without humans affect. It proves that with humans affect climate changes quickly. There are more evidences of quickly climate changing: 1. Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last CENTURY. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. It is changing during 100 years not billions of years. 2. All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 3. The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. 4. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. 5. Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 6. The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. Has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. 7. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. All these facts proves that during last century climate was changing a lot. The last century is about 100 years and it is really quickly. Before humans' industry climate was changing slowly during millions or even billions of year. That means people's affect is really big and dangerous. What will happen in the next centuries if such situation will continue? Next, my opponent wrote that climate and weather are different, also he gave the definition of the climate. "Climate is defined as: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years". It means that WEATHER conditions in the certain period of time IS CLIMATE. It proves that humans' affect to the weather can change the climate, as weather influences to the climate and they are not so different. That means my argument in the second round about how people change the weather is RELEVANT to the topic. I wrote that China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue sky for the National Day parade, that has caused the big storm in the next days. It is not happened once, there are several other examples of it in America, too. I would like to say that all these transformations of the weather influenced to climate changing. Once weather was changed it affects to the weather in the next periods of time. The last Con's argument is that there are other things such as volcano, which produce CO2 more than humans. So, as he claimed a big amount of CO2 is not humans' fault. My response is that in the nature everything was balanced before industry. The certain amount of the CO2, which produces by volcanoes or other things, was removed by trees and by algae. However, since the industry appeared, a lot of factories, manufactures and a lot of vehicles were invented and amount of CO2 increases. Moreover, trees and algae that removes the CO2 were destroyed, burned and cut by humans. That means human increases the amount of CO2 and decrease the trees that removes CO2, so humans damaged the natural balance, as a result an amount of CO2 increased and it influences to climate's changing. Look to the cite http://climate.nasa.gov... There is a chart, which proves that for 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above the certain line until 1950 year. It shows that amount of CO2 was once small, then was big, but the fact is that it was in balance in the certain amount, while since humans start to use factories and vehicles, CO2's amount increased a lot. That proves that humans affect to climate changing. In conclusion, I have clearly proved that attack to transform the weather can influence to the climate changing; that increasing of the amount of the CO2 during last years is a big problem that is caused by humans. Also, that the climate changing affected by humans is quicklier than the natural climate changing can be. So, humans are the main creature that influences to the climate and changes it. So, I am writing to everyone, think a bit about climate changing and its consequences. What will happen in the future if CO2 increase, sea level and global temperature rise, ocean acidification continues? Humans affects to these problems and, I believe, humans can stop them. Think about your future and the future of the next generation and stop damaging to the nature and to the climate. Thank you for attention.)) Also, thank you, my opponent. I had excellent experiences by debating with you. It was really interesting. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
97% of Climate Scientists Don't Actually Agree
Just about every time a debate begins anywhere on the topic of climate change, you will hear the statistic "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused my human induced pollution". Well, that settles it right? There is no way that 97% of climate scientists could all be wrong? Using this, we should all be able to agree that it is time to focus on climate change and accept that it is our fault and we can stop it right? Well, no. I've started this debate to clarify that the 97% statistic is very misleading and used for the wrong purposes. Let it be known to my opponent and voters that this is not a general climate change debate, but simply a debate on this number alone. Please remain on this topic. Now, let me start by talking about the primary topic of this debate, the 97% statistic. And you've probably heard this before, but what exactly do they agree on? If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an alarming and dangerous rate, then why question it, but my sources say that they say no more then point out a slight warming trend of about 0.8 degrees over the past century. So if this is the only statistic they all agree on, then how do you justify using this statistic to justify government funded organisations as big as the EPA or other environmental protection programs. you can't It has also been proven that in most cases of any percentage of 90+ in cases of climate change are almost always do to poor studies. For instance John Cook came up with a study in 2012 that stated "97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming and human activity is the main cause" Well, it turns out that most of his papers never actually stated any such thing. He in fact created a category which he believed the prior statement was implied, but never stated, which we can all agree can be considered as malpractice. It also turns out that 3 scientists,Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Nichola Scafetta, and Dr. Richard Tol, whose papers where included all said that there papers where never supposed to be used in any such way. So, based on my arguments, I believe it is safe to say that until an accurate study is conducted stating that climate scientists agree that Climate change is real and that humans are the primary cause we can not use any such statistic to convince the public to take unnecessary actions to resolve a problem that we know little about the magnitude and possible consequences of, not to mention the fact that they haven't even confirmed that there is even something we can do to stop it.
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
"Global climate change" means the climate effects, whatever they might be, of humans introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "US" is the United States of America. "US energy policy" in this debate means prohibitions or incentives provided by the US government with regard to the US development or use of carbon-based fuels for energy. This includes outright prohibitions on the development of oil, oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, and coal, as well as disincentives and obstacles aimed at minimizing their use. Energy policy includes subsidies and mandates for use of non-carbon alternatives. Restrictions or incentives aimed at other purposes are not a subject of this debate, nor is the funding of research projects. The US does not have an official energy policy, but it has many laws and regulations that constitute a de facto policy. The laws and regulations are at issue. A "major factor" is one that may determine a policy outcome, as distinct from factors that might either accrue as side benefits or weigh as disadvantages of a policy. Standard dictionary definitions are used, with the context used to select the appropriate definition. In this debate, "flow through sources" are allowed. If a blog, book, popular article, or Wikipedia is used as a reference, and if the data cited is referenced from another source the implication is that the original source is referenced. Sometime a blogger plots some data in a convenient form for presentation, so it's helpful to reference the graph. The data is argued from it's source. Cited opinions stand or fall on their individual merits as being authoritative or not. Reference lists or arguments beyond the debate 8000 character limits are not allowed. The first round is for acceptance and definitions. There are a total of four rounds.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.
Thank you for the chance to debate this topic. I am an avid believer that climate change is mainly man made, at least now. Your first point was how even though data shows a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature, carbon emission is not the largest factor. But according to the World Meteorological Organization (as well as NASA and countless organizations and scientists), CO2 is the largest factor of global warming. This study included natural substances like water vapor. The problem with CO2 is that it is a very abundant greenhouse gas which takes a long time to dissipate from the atmosphere. 65% of global emissions are CO2 emissions, making it by far the most abundant man made greenhouse gas. Even though it isn't as abundant as water vapor, it is much more effective at trapping the Sun's rays. Now, greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming, while the most effective and very abundant greenhouse gas is CO2. Here are some graphs: From NASA, this is probably the most infamous graph as it shows just how drastic CO2 emissions have gone up. (It won't let me post photos, so here is the link) http://climate.nasa.gov... Enlightening, isn't it? Now this concerns temperature rise at the same time as CO2 rise. http://climate.nasa.gov... This link should have the graph close to the top on the right hand side Not only that, but a massive 97% of all scientists agree global warming is man made. ------- Your second point was that temperatures were higher in the past than they are now (specifically, during the time of Roman civilization). While there definitely are natural cycles that rise and lower, Earth's temperature is accelerating at a much faster rate than any natural cycle before, and shows no sign of stopping like a cycle would. This is again, because of man made emissions, and the majority of those are carbon. ------- Your third point was that global warming is mainly due to sun rays hitting the earth and heating it up. While sun rays hit the earth and that is what causes all weather, the amount of rays stays basically stable like the earths orbit. So when greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, they trap sun rays and warm the earth. So the evidence shows clearly that global warming is mainly people driven, although natural cycles may contribute to the increase. The evidence shows clearly that greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming. The evidence shows clearly that CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat. Therefore, the evidence shows that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. Sources: https://www3.epa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... https://www3.epa.gov... https://www.wmo.int...
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Ok first off If you read my post about the Hydrogen economy I am not citing the entire book. I was citing the over estimating of useable oil left in reserves and the political implications. NOT HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE. No where have I said that hydrogen would be a good source because you are right about its, its too expensive and produces a lot of water vapor. Those studies are just proxy studies and that research fails to account for the massive quantities release into the atmosphere through emissions. Plus no you haven't showed and direct link for any data such as that. Least not in this debate. 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 quatities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossiable to think otherwise. Oh and catalytic converters has now been linked with production of nitrous oxide. Another wonderful greenhouse gas. Plus burn more fuel. Gas prices are already inflated and not due to enviromentalists. Production is tapping out. Our oil reserves are starting to run dry. There is still a lot of oil left. However not all of it is retrievable. Countries are overestimating oil reserves, Hydrogen economy discusses that quite in depth. Yes there have been warming periods and cooling periods. However there are very few that have such a high growth rate in greenhouse gases combined with a high species extinction rate. Well the scientists in the 70s are not totally wrong. When large amounts of heating occurs it changes the climate and weather patterns. This can create another ice age or other adverse climate changes Millions of people are starving right now. We could solve world hunger right now with a small tax and genetically engineered food. However Americans for the most part would most likely whine and complain. Rather we rather waste our money on war and oppression. Don't feed me that crap. Most of those countries can't afford to think of a tractor. Plus they aren't emitting hardly any emissions so it does affect them. We are the ones that are wasting and throwing away tons of resources. WE should pay the price of our self-indulgence. The reason oil prices are so high is because our current government set us up for economic disaster. With the dollar being so highly inflated it raises great concern on the market. Since oil commodities are in dollar amounts they go up with inflation too. On top of this foreign investors who have higher currency then us (the European union) buy this oil because it creates a good hedge fund in the portfolio. Now they have a commodity that has a demand and with more and more purchases will only drive up the price. Plus the oil in the Alaskan refuge is miniscule. It would barely make a dent in gas prices. It would be years before we would see it hit the market in full force. However right now Alberta just found a huge oil reserve. Plus oil will run out before 2020. Or at least the reserves that we currently can access. Plus OPEC has also said they will not increase production. So its not the environmentalist fault. "Climate research is not science it is a political view point". Did you just seriously say that. I mean seriously that is one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard. I suppose then all the research saying that nothing is happening is just a political viewpoint. Yes the climate of Hawaii and its origin must all be a political viewpoint. Are you a scientist? Are you even qualified in the least to make that assumption? Lets just pretend (I'm just asking you to pretend not believe all-right.) that we really are ruining the planet. Lets pretend that we mess it up and we cease to exist as a species. Wouldn't you want to save the very thing that you depend on to survive. If we destroy our planet we are out of luck. Thats it no more. Wouldn't you want to try to do anything to protect the planet for the sake of your own life and if not but for your children's sake. But no of course not. We must burn the wildlife refuges and drill for oil and pillage our earth's pantry until its bear. We are overfishing our oceans, exhausting fields of their soil, destroying ecosystems for sake of greed. Honey Bees our most foremost pollinator are dying and we have no idea why. But no, you say drill for the oil, cut down the forest, we are not citizens of nature but masters of it. Well guess what, we are not masters or conquers we are residents. The real danger is the dire state our planet it in. Environmentalist are fighting for balance. You spew all of this garbage out of your mouth about how environmentalism is evil and is just robbing america blind. Have you ever considered that is might be the other way around?
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting: I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic [32]. Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side. Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are "alarmists." This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary. Summary of Sources by Pro: Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive. Summary of Sources by Con: Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the "Solar Radiation" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted. Con's Round 1 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement heartland.org 1 N Y National Interagency Fire Center Organization Established Off Topic Daily Mail 1 (David Rose) N N Washington Post Jason Samenow N Y NPR 1 (Zac Unger) N Y Forbes 1 (Larry Bell) N N Mitosyfraudes.org 1 (Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner) Geodynamics N Newscientist.com 1 (Michael Le Page) N Y The Guardian 1 (Damian Carrington) N Neither The Telegraph 1 (Christopher Booker) N N Brutally Honest N/A N N NewsBusters 1 (Noel Sheppard) N N Market Wired N/A N cfact.org 1 (Marita Noon) N N American Thinker (2007) 1 (D. Bruce Merrifield) Y (Physical Chemistry, Ph. D.) “While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the "forcing agent" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study.” Whatsupwiththat 1 (David Middleton) N N CO2science.org 1 (Christie Shumway) 4th-grade science project N/A Nature 4 Y (Department of Agriculture; Harvard Planetary Sciences) Y blogs.nature.com Oliver Morton N N/A Journal of Geophysical Research 10+ Y (Forecasting Research and Development; University of Reading; University of Leeds) Y Nature 2 Y (Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen) Y Nature 1 (Olivier Boucher) Y (American Geophysical Union) Y minnesotans for global warming .com Elmer N N Con's Round 2 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement badscience.net 1 (Ben Goldacre) Y (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) Off topic (discusses MMR and autism) businessinsider.com 1 (Dina Spector) N Off topic (discusses religious predictions) Nature 1 (Daniel R. Taub) Y (Biology Department, Southwestern University) Y (CO2 is the independent variable, climate change is acknowledged in introduction) climatecentral.org 1 (Tim Radford) N Neither theresilientearth.com 1 (Doug L. Hoffman) N N Daily Caller 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N icecap.us 1 (Frank Lansner) No record N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Joannenova.com 1 (JoNova) N N Shrouded in Doubt (blog) 2 (blogger and R. Dale Guthrie) N (blogger) Y (Guthrie, University of Chicago) N & Y (blogger assigns improper headline to Guthrie’s work) Wikipedia Holocene Climate Optimum N/A N Off topic European Space Agency Organization Y (European Space Agency) Off topic (ozone hole) skepticalscience.com 1 (John Cook) Y (University of Queensland) Y Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 1 (Zhang, J.) Y (University of Washington) Y (ice is declining) polarbearscience.com 1 (Dr. Susan J. Crockford) Y (University of British Columbia) Off topic (discusses Polar Bear population) Daily Mail 1 (Caroline Graham) N N The Hockey Schtick (blog) 1 (HocheySchtick1) N N sciencedaily.com reference to Nature Article 11 Y (Centre for Oceanic Research) Off topic (Oceans absorb CO2, reduces oceanic ph) Nature 10 Y (Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, University of California, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Maine) Y (The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs) OceanWorld.tamu.edu organization . . . i think so Off topic (feed iron to plankton to increase productivity) wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Bob Tisdale) N N judithcurry.com 1 (Judith Curry) N N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Con's Round 3 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given Con's Round 4 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N New York Times (blog) 1 (Andrew C. Revkin) N Neither (discusses whether scientists should have political opinions) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) Joannenova.com 1 (Joanne Nova) N N wattsupwiththat 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N MSNBC 2 (Ian Johnston, James Lovelock) Y (London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine) N The Telegraph 1 (Fritz Vahrenholt) N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N The Globe and Mail 2 (Neil Reynolds, Robert Laughlin) N & Y (Stanford University Physics) N Climate Depot 2 (Judith Curry, Marc Morano) N N Climate Depot 2 (Richard Lindzen, Marc Morano) Y, N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N poleshift.ning.com (blog) 1 N N truthisreason.com (blog) 1 N N http://goo.gl... URL disabled I apologize for the awkwardness of this pasted chart, but I have enjoyed this debate, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it!
Reduced emissions from RES may have no impact on climate change
Jonathan DuHamel. "National Renewable Energy Standard Will Mean Higher Electricity Bills." Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thereby forestall global warming (now “Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thereby forestall global warming (now “climate disruption”) although there is no credible evidence that reduced emissions will have a measurable effect on climate."
Climate Shift
Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is primarily influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only.
CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.
First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims this round, I would like to remind the voters that we are debating whether or not, by Catholic standards, IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE, the Catholic Church says it's ok to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate. I will expand on this distinction later in this round. Also, I would like to point out that my opponent didn't cite ANY sources for her claims at any time. I guess she just expects the voters to take her word for it. REBUTTALS My opponent said: "con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is more open to interpretation. " My response: I'd be happy to offer a source for the definition of "proportion". Proportion: "comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to size, quantity, number, etc.; ratio." [3] I think we can all see how my opponent's use of "proportionate reasons" to be flawed in the eyes of the Catholic Church. The Church doesn't see every reason for voting to be proportional. Also notice that my opponent didn't offer any Catholic source that supports her interpretation of "proportionate reasons". My opponent said: "and, the quoted part where ratzinger said a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote on that issue." My response: My opponent just said that Pope Benedict XVI (formally Cardinal Ratxzinger) were "irrelevant" in this matter. REALLY??? His comments irrelevant on a Catholic matter??? Funny how my opponent was the first one to quote him in this debate. My opponent said: "a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice butnot protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B giventorture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words." AGAIN, in this debate, we're debating about voting in THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE. Maybe 500 years ago, a candidate for office would be "pro-torture", but not so in this political climate. No presidential candidate in my lifetime (43 years) has ever claimed to be "pro-torture". So my opponent's example is invalid. If such a candidate did exist who was both pro-choice and pro-torture, then my opponent may have a point. However, IN THIS POLITICAL CLIMATE, no such candidate exits. Therefore, no proportionate reasons exist for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate. But don't take my word for it. In the last presidential election, the Bishops of Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri both said that no proportionate reasons exist to vote for a pro-choice candidate. [4] So in conclusion, no proportionate reason exists to vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate in this political climate. And because of this, the resolution HAS BEEN NEGATED. Please vote Con. Sources: 3.http://dictionary.reference.com... 4http://www.tldm.org...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
Take a look at the mass desertification. The Sahara Desert has grown 10% in less than a century. ("The Sahara Desert Is Growing. Here's What That Means" at livescience). This is largely because of humans killing off plant and animal life and using up natural resources including water. It all goes hand in hand. Think about the endangered animals because of humans. Now think about how their near-extinction or extinction will affect their environment. If the prey die, The predators die. If the predators die, The prey grow too populous, Thus destroying more plant life. Coral reef bleaching events have gone up drastically since the industrial era. Once large reefs (most notably the Great Barrier Reef) are being destroyed from the rising sea temperatures and ocean pollution. You can't accept that pollution and endangered animals are being caused by humans but then reject that all this doesn't affect the climate and the ecosystems of the world.
The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.
I thank my opponent for a decent rebuttal. First, we are not assuming that the Obama plan will even work. It may, or it may not. My statisctic, not the debate, assumed that the Obama plan actually worked. W can further debate whether or not the plan will work or not. The debate, however, based on both people's calculations, establishes that nature automatically puts out a climate change of 0. Further, this debate does not entail the entire Obama plan for Climate Change, which also may or may not work, but just the U. S. adopting his Cap and Trade program. Therefore, I must only disprove that the U.S. adopting Cap and Trade will (by itself) result in a significant effect on climate (.25 degrees Fahrenheit). The rest of Obama's plan (involving the U.N.) is not part of Obama's Cap and Trade plan. Assuming that the Obama plan does not stop at 2050, then, yes, we can assume that Obama will continue to constrict the United States' carbon footprint to 2.4% of what it is now. This is the overall effect of Obama's Cap and Trade program. For these reasons, my opponent's calculations do not apply. 1. I will redo my calculations: 1.35 degrees warming=150 years 50 years= .45 degrees warming 27 percent U. S. x .45 degress warming=0.27 x 0.45= 0.1215 U.S. degrees warming contribution 0.1215 U.S. degrees warming x 2.4 percent left by 2059=0.1215 x .024 = 0.002916 U.S. contribution after 50 years 0.1215 current contribution - 0.002916 remaining contribution=0.118584 warming difference Therefore, after 50 years, even with my oppoenent's contribution to the statisctics, even making the grand assumption that it will work, Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. 2. Further, Cap and Trade will not even work to the degree that Obama anticipates it will. Companies would just pay a high amount of money and eventually die out. This would result in power crisis (as the Coal Industry dies out), a transportation crisis (as the Oil refining industry dies out), etc. This is impractical. Power and refined oil would be imported, and thus produced in other countries, especially ones that aren't in the U.N. From this, we know that the other countries would just end up producing everything that was produced domestically, and no emmissions would be lessened overall. In the meanwhile, jobs go overseas. I again reassert that Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. My opponent having the U.S. annex the world does not apply to this debate.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
First screw you and condescending snot nosed attitude towards me in defining climate, green house gasses and the green house effect. I don't have a problem with any of those definitions they are all naturally occurring things that enable the earth to have an atmosphere. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com...... So lets see CORNELIA DEAN a columnist at the N.Y. Times who is such a crappy and incompetent reporter who so lazy that she cant even provide a source for the claim she makes in this article or even the name of the institution or names of scientists who provided the information. Let me let you in on something. You are going to have to provide peer reviewed research done by peer reviewed scientists in order to use it as a source. I have been ridiculed and chastised for not doing so and you will be to. There is no way for me to verify this information and who did the research. I will allow you to come up with another source that meets peer reviewed credentials in the next round. But for now it is a worthless source. "Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature." Please provide your source that proves there is a direct relationship between Co2 and rises in temps. "Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate "http://news.mongabay.com...... Sorry but this is a blog and is worthless as a source. It is not peer reviewed. "The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen." Again, what is your source. "Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insulation power".http://www.terranature.org...... Another blog, again a worthless source. "We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature". What is your source. "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". This is an opinion "Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back." This is an opinion Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates). Please provide source "Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation." I don't have a problem with this statement although a "die hard enviromentalist" being for nuclear energy sounds like an oxymorn to me. "Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable." When you provide peer reviewede sources where indicated I will glady respond to each and every one. You must at the very least provide the scientits name or names so I can veryfy who they are and what their credtials are. I'm sorry but what's exspected of me should also be expected of you. I have had to many debates on this subject and have learned my lesson, now it's your turn.
Man made climate change is a myth
The science is open
Man made climate change is a myth
Science is self correcting
The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
The beneficial effects are slight, and confined to the predominantly wealthy cooler developed countries. By contrast, any rise in temperatures will lead to devestating damage to hot countries around the equator which are almost all relatively poor developing countries. Not only do the harms massively outweigh any benefits, the harms hurt those worst off, the benefits those who are already the wealthiest and safest countries on the planet.
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.
I gladly accept your debate and look forward to your arguments. Good luck!
Climate change is real and caused by humans
I'm stubborn?
