Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 2.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Ice Ages are real (I don't expect you to argue that ice ages are NOT real) The Earth has experienced five ice ages that we know of Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation. The current ice age that Earth is in is the Quaternary, within the Quaternary we are in an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch. "The Holocene is a geologicalepoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (at 11,700 calendar years BP) [2] and continues to the present." http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see from the table ^ posted above, The earth has experienced temperatures far warmer than we currently are experiencing, and likewise has experienced temperatures far cooler than we are currently experiencing. And this is just in a relatively short period (geologically speaking) and within our current ice age. The Greenland ice sheet is thought to be fairly young, only to have formed in the Oligocene epoch, and most likely to have retreated and advanced many times. http://en.wikipedia.org... The beginning of this ice age is referred to as the time when permanent ice sheets were established on Greenland and Antarctica, thus the end of the last ice age was set by the absence of those permanent ice sheets. In summary, we know there have been five separate ice ages and within those ice ages there are multiple glacial and interglacial periods where these ice sheets have retreated and advanced. I contend that with all the geological evidence available to us, the Greenland ice sheets would retreat with or without the impact of humans. We may in fact be having an impact on glaciation, but regardless of that impact, glaciation would occur with or without us as it has for hundreds of millions of years. There are forces at work that affect our global climate far greater than the man made Co2 which is measure in ppm (parts per million) These forces include but are not limited to: Solar Output http://en.wikipedia.org... Orbital Forcing http://en.wikipedia.org... Volcanism http://en.wikipedia.org... Plate Tectonics http://en.wikipedia.org... Ocean Currents http://en.wikipedia.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.23
      climate: 12.93
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.73 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)
      change: 7.30
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    ===== Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE ---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate ===== End DISCLAIMER ===== When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate. It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the political response to it. In Round 2, I will try my first argument that the CATASTROPHE [per your description] allows for the US political response to be putting it at the bottom of our priority list. In each of the remaining rounds, I will make an additional argument to support my thesis. In all rounds, Please do your best to rebut my arguments.

  • PRO

    If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    Closing Arguments A === Minimal Scientific Consensus Two times (here and in another debate of mine) you referred to the consensus from "98% of climate scientists. " But all Science tells us for sure is that there is some warming and some of it is our fault. Beyond that, There is no consensus. Science does not agree on the size of warming--neither overall, Nor from humans; not on the CATASTOPHE--not P and Q costs, Climate-related deaths, When it will occur, Or lost hectares of livable and arable land; not on the path forward--neither an emissions target, Nor viable ways to achieve it. B === Your Pathetic Solutions You seem unfamiliar with solutions to what you call "the highest priority for any country. " You cited 2 kinds of solutions: known failures (solar dimming, Storing CO2 underground, Planting trees), And preposterous ideas (Sahara Desert solar panels, Dyson Spheres). I said I'm willing to spend money on planting trees. I consider this very different than "fixing the climate. " If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do we need ANY climate research? C === Open Questions You seem unfamiliar with world progress against what you call "the highest priority for any country. " I ask again, What has $2T bought us so far? If nothing, Then we should not waste any more money, Or we should fall back to planting trees. If it is unknown, Then environmentalists are not really concerned with progress, And climate spending is a bottomless pit. In Round 4, I expressed willingness to cap future USA spending at $150B. You retorted that this qualifies as "high priority. " Is the USA halfway done then? I doubt you believe that. D === Power? One of the main reasons I don't want to pursue fixing the climate is the transfer of power from people to government. The most common "solutions" offered in politics are raising taxes and government spending. These all have dubious benefit to the climate, But they CERTAINLY increase the power of governments. Clearly the politics of climate are questionable. This is a serious concern for many people in the USA. E === Better Priorities While you think that "fixing the climate" should be THE highest, There are many other projects that are should be higher, Considering both the money and moral sides. The moral side is based on life-and-death consequences. The financial side is based on immediately viable solutions and low cost per saved-life. The TED talk "Global priorities bigger than climate change" provides the following recommendations. The U. N. Estimates that for half the cost of "fixing the climate, " we could solve all these world problems and more: --- AIDS --- $3. 4B prevents 3. 5 million new AIDS cases per year --- Malnutrition --- $12B buys health for about half of cases worldwide --- Poverty --- Reducing tariffs in USA and Europe (no govt spending, Just higher prices in the 1st World) raises 300 million people out of poverty in five years --- Malaria --- $3B buys about 1 million saved lives per year

  • PRO

    Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)-...

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

    First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem. CO2 has gone up. Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- https://Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- https://climate.nasa.gov...; The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody's The Earth has gotten hotter NASA once again has a relevant graph: https://climate.nasa.gov... These two are correlated Here, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles): https://www.climate.gov...; And no, the NOAA isn't fake: https://www.snopes.com...; Your ad hominems also reminded me of this: https://imgur.com...

  • PRO

    Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that these puny...

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

    If there are any changes humans are not responsible for them. The sun is responsible for temperature. It is possible that temperatures have been increasing slowly for the last 10, 000 years due to the sun and Earth cycles. Humans only represent a tiny fraction of the Earth's mass and are therefore, Incapable of altering the overall temperature on Earth. Humans represent only a mere 3 grains of sand on a beach which is 100 kilometres long. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that these puny life forms give out it will never be enough to effect the rest of the planet. The problem being that humans have huge egos which don't allow them to see what the proper order of the universe is. Thus, Humans believe that they can alter the climate of the Earth by their actions. This is only a self delusional fantasy and over estimation of the size and importance in the scheme of things.

  • PRO

    This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    1 ========= Up Front Costs Are a Waste You rescinded any claim to P savings after Q spending. Your only source that warming will ever end is the term "eventually. " 3 ========= There are no solutions You respond that "Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. " Low level research into everything (including the climate) is getting done. This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to various folks to see if they can make some miracles. If somebody somewhere in the world ever actually finds a possible solution, The USA (and all nations) should make a deliberate choice about how to implement it. If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would change their tune at all. They would still say the sky is falling and spout their moral imperatives to "keep the climate stable. " This politics of alarmism worked for the first decade or two, But now it fails to generate enough public support to rise beyond low priority. Therefore, Since costs to date have made zero progress so far (I call them a "bottomless pit"), The USA should keep its Q investments low. Source: According to "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017" on the Climate Policy Initiative. Between 2012 and 2016, Just under $2T USD was spent, Including government and private investments.

  • PRO

    con) http://www.badscience.net... ... This shows that...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    To address them as efficiently as possible, I am listing Con's round 2 sources in my own list of round 2 references: sources 32-34 are mine, and sources 35-57 are Con's. Logical Fallacy: Fallacy [27] "You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." [27] "Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." [27] To express Con's use of this Fallacy, I expressed the difference between making an error in the trajectory of Celestial bodies and concluding that Newton's calculus does not work. Con's response? "I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" - Con. Just one question - did Con honestly click on my 27th source? Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or "ignoring every argument." Ad Hominem ignores the content stated by an individual to attack their character. Logical Fallacies are based solely on the content stated by the individual. Misrepresentation and The strawman fallacy [28] "By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." 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. Con's response: "Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any." Is it fair to say this constitutes the misrepresentation of the concerns I represent in this debate? Could we perhaps call this a "dropped point"? Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart. This shows stark contrast from Con's statement that scientists have not defined what is "normal" or "optimal" when discussing the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere. These concentrations correllate with the following temperature anomaly readings of the last 130 years [32]: The image from [32] "NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus" shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years, versus the plateau in 'temperature' that was previously discussed. Temperature anomaly is the deviation from expected temperature, and as Con's Solar Radiation sources so helpfully pointed out, we would expect the slight cooling of the sun for the past decades to be associated with a decrease in temperature. The scientific organizations listed in image 3 regularly produce definitions of what is "normal" or "optimal" temperature. Actually, negative 18 degrees Celsius is what the temperature would be without the greenhouse effect [34], so obviously we exist in part because of greenhouse gases. While celebrating their existence as a factor of ours, we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature. Clearly, the latest spike in CO2 readings and temperature anomalies are more than "natural," and 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. 32. http://climate.nasa.gov... 33. http://climate.nasa.gov... 34. http://www.columbia.edu... 35. (con) http://www.badscience.net... 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. 36. (con) http://www.businessinsider.com... This is about religious predictions being wrong, and Con is hoping that it disproves scientific theories on climate change. 37. (con) http://t.co... This concludes that increasing CO2 has disproportional and "complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities," and con is hoping it will show that CO2 emissions are good for the environment. In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic. 38. (con) http://t.co... This explains the counterbalance of the greenhouse effect by the fertilization effect, and con hopes to show that it disproves the greenhouse effect. Actually, despite the increased foliage that responds to the greenhouse effect, if anything, this article proves the greenhouse effect. 39. (con) http://t.co... This also shows that foreresty increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is also an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect. 40. (con) http://t.co... We are truly repeating ourselves, as this also shows that forestry increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is an empirical measurement of greenhouse gases. 41. (con) http://t.co... "Contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time." 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. 42. (con) http://t.co... This shows that CO2 is not the "primary" driver of temperature, but as shown in images 2 and 3, climate theory relies on "temperature anomaly," which compares temperature predictions to actual temperatures to control for multiple variables. 43. (con) http://t.co... This is part of this research article: http://t.co... , which concludes that "antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations." Con's claims is that we're still uncertain whether temperature affects CO2 levels or whether it is the other way around. 44. (con) http://t.co... This shows that temperatures affect CO2, not the other way around, and absolutely, but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog. Our discussion of financial incentive and social popularity is key here, because rather than being based on peer-review, this is based off view-count and quite possibly anonymous funding. Note her motto, "hate to see a good civilization going to waste," playing on the age-old rivalry between environmental and business movements. 45. (con) http://t.co... This shows that global temperatures underwent variation before the industrial age too. Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures. 46. (con) http://en.wikipedia.org... This shows that an extreme temperature jump occured 6,000 years ago. Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove. 47. (con) http://t.co... This suggests that the ozone layer on the road to recovery, which 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. 48. (con) http://t.co... Con probably meant to demonstrate that doubling the CO2 can only change temperature by 1 degree F, because that's indeed listed in this source, but it's listed as a myth. 49. (con) http://nsidc.org... Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal, but this article states, "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2013 was 5.35 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles). This was 1.17 million square kilometers (452,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent." 50. (con) http://t.co... Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast. I'm talking about scientific theory, not Al-Gore's presidential platform. 51. (con) http://t.co... See explanation for [50]. 52. (con) http://t.co... "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause." It's pithy, and it's non-scientifically simple. It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]. 53. (con) http://www.sciencedaily.com... See [38]-[40]. 54. (con) http://www.nature.com... See [53]. 55. (con) http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... See [54]. 56. (con) http://t.co... This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade. 57. (con) http://t.co... This shows that energy in oceans has been increasing overtime.

  • PRO

    by catholic church standards, it is not wrong for a...

    it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

    by catholic church standards, it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate the pope said a person shouldn't vote for prochoice politicians unless a proportionate reason exists to vote for them. this could include not just bigger genocides, but also the idea that voting on the issue of abortion likely wont change abortion. prolife presidents get elected, but not much changes. there's not enough people who are prolife to justify keeping voting on that issue alone, arguably.

  • PRO

    finally, there is nothing that prevents a scientist from...

    Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

    I am having trouble figuring out what Con is claiming with respect to the contentions. He says "By refuting the negative results that most likely would result were the resolution be adopted, I have refuted the entire premise of the resolution and have thus responded to the debate challenge." But "refuting the negative results" of the resolution amounts to affirming the resolution. Surely Con doesn't want to affirm the resolution, so what I am supposed to make of what he says? He leaves my contentions largely unrefuted. Con understands correctly that the resolution requires that raw data be published within one month within the results of analysis. He asks, "wouldn't analyzed data also have to have been collected?" Analyzed data is what is published, so it is always disclosed. Thus for example, the raw historical temperature data showing the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) would be required to be posted on the Internet along with the processing software that removed the MWP to yield the hockey stick graph in which there was no climate change prior to the last few decades. Under the current rules, only the result in which past climate change was removed is revealed, and it took scientists a decade to dig out the steps by which the MWP was made to disappear. Con claims that, "To assume this would eliminate (or even curtail) errors and/or ambiguous data or skewed results is pure conjecture and unsupported." Con's clam is false because (a) I gave an important example, the hockey stick controversy, in which a serious error was revealed once the requirements of the resolution were met, and (b) the peer review process, long the basis for scientific publication, is enabled by the resolution. The resolution requires that information available under the Freedom of Information Act in the US and Britain be produced on a timely basis, rather than be subject to indefinite delay. It is not unsupported conjecture that peer review uncovers errors in general, nor is it conjecture that the process embodied in the resolution uncovered the major error in the hockey stick graph, with the result that the hockey graph was removed from the 2007 IPCC report. It is also not conjecture that CRU, perhaps innocently, erased the climate source data requested under a British FIA request, and that after nearly three years NASA has not responded to a FIA request for source data. If the method of the resolution is put into effect, the data disappearances and indefinite delays will be ended. Con suggests that the data and software only be given only to "bona fide investigators" rather than to "pundits." This suggestion does not respond to the history I have cited in which CRU and NASA did not in fact provide the data for review by bona fide climate scientists, claiming they lost the data or that they are unable to reconstruct the analysis or using various other excuses. In the Climategate e-mails, CRU scientists speak directly of subverting the peer review process so that their work will not be subject to scrutiny. The CRU and NASA scientists have no worries whatsoever about the general public or "pundits" receiving the data, because only scientists are capable of unraveling what CRU referred to as "tricks" used in processing the data. finally, there is nothing that prevents a scientist from also being a pundit. CO2 crisis advocates are often prominent pundits. Just produce the data for all to see, without a bunch of nonsense obstacles. The Medieval Warm Period was about as warm as the present, but it was made to disappear entirely from the historical record of climate through the the use of mathematical techniques claimed to be good science. It took substantial expertise to discover the errors. Every effort was made to keep the hockey stick data from qualified scientists. (The history of the hockey stick and it's unraveling is well covered in Plimer's book. http://www.amazon.com... ) The way that peer review is currently avoided, as it was avoided in the case of the hockey stick graph, is to provide the papers and the data only to believers in climate crisis, who then provide only a cursory review. The work is not made available to review by skeptics prior to publication, and after publication the data is not produced voluntarily for review. FIA requests must be formally filed, and those are often ignored or resisted. Con implies that there is some threat to national security involved if data is published. There is none. For example, there are currently about 770 scientific papers supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm period, and they include work form Russia, China, and every corner of the earth. Con cannot site a single matter of national security involved. Con claims, "If all communications between parties engaged in climate-change research were to be made public, free and uninhibited discourse between these parties would be severely curtailed." The resolution does not require the publication of any e-mail or correspondence. It does not require disclosure of preliminary results of any kind. The resolution requires on that when results of climate analysis are published voluntarily by scientists, that the supporting raw data and processing software be posted within one month of publication. CRU wanted to keep their e-mail about subverting peer review secret for fear a hacker or whistleblower would reveal it, but the present resolution would not affect private e-mail. The resolution only concerns data and software, and then only when results are announced. Con argues "One has to duplicate perfectly the entry of that data and the parameters surrounding the software within the specific computer as well as being equally conversant in the operation of the software as its creator." Yes, that is why software configuration control systems are used. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a solved problem. There is no version of good science that does not require reproducing results. There is no concern that unqualified people in the general public will critique climate research software. The general public cannot comprehend it. What CRU and NASA are worried about are the critiques of well-qualified climate scientists. And they should be worried, because in the past they have been caught cooking the books. Con concludes, "But to insist upon public disclosure of every keystroke and instance of data falling outside of the standard deviation model is to invite equally public defamation of the publishing party ..." But, of course, the resolution does not come close to requiring every keystroke. Rather, climate scientists advocating crisis theory made the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear from climate history. During the Medieval Warm period, grapes were grown in Scotland and Greenland was named for its greenery. During the Little Ice Age, the Thames froze over every year and winter festivals were held on the ice. But after processing by "sound scientific methods" a graph was produced that showed nothing happening with global climate until the last few decades. The data and methods were withheld from skeptical scientists and from the public who paid for the bogus research. The resolution only requires that scientists paid by the government to perform climate research disclose what raw data they started with, and how they process it to get the results they voluntarily choose to publish. I'm sorry if they don't like to show their work, but most of us had to do that starting in grade school. climate research is too important to let it be concealed, only to have it ultimately drawn out by lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Let's do it up front and get on with it. The resolution is affirmed.

  • PRO

    President Trump resisted some intense lobbying by leaders...

    Trump not swayed by G-7 leaders on Paris climate deal

    President Trump resisted some intense lobbying by leaders of other industrialized nations Friday to back the Paris climate-change agreement at a G-7 summit in Sicily, Italy.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/trump-delays-climate-accord-decision
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.60
      climate: 15.28
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 7.38 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 4.33
      premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.94)

CON

  • CON

    In debate we call that a Biased Sample Fallacy coupled...

    Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

    Pro: No Matter what the final outcome of this debate may be, I thank you for an extremely well-structured debate based upon one of today's most pressing questions. Thank you for the honor of allowing me to present the Con Position. Pro has stated he is having trouble figuring out what I was claiming with respect to the contentions. I understand his confusion since I meant to say I was refuting his claims of results that most likely would result. I apologize for the error and will be more careful in the future. Too bad the spell checker cannot flag those kind of errors. Pro contends that by posting on the internet the data supporting the publication of findings by a particular scientist or group, that the raw historical data be included in the posting along with the software used to analyze and plot that data, be included. On the surface this sounds good but here is the problem: If a group was to come across a small data set that refuted their other findings, but that that data was obtained in an unsatisfactory manner (such as some measurements being taken during an unusually warm period due to other than usual conditions, they would have to show the erroneous data and explain it omission in the overall results. Here is where the pundits come in: I can hear it now, "They just threw out data they didn't like!...This proves their entire theory is wrong and it is probably been cooked to get more tax money!" In debate we call that a Biased Sample Fallacy coupled with the Red Herring Fallacy. In debate, we have the opportunity to point these fallacies out and moving on, letting the judges decide. In real life, once the pundits latch on to something they think they can run with, in this case, not the "missing data" but the tax money. Scientists can counter the arguments all they want, but the anti's will still be the loudest. It is for this reason the raw data and the process of analysis (which may include the non-consideration of some data) being presented to the public would be counter-productive, thus confirming Con's position. I said I wouldn't get into the debate of global climate change per se so I will admit that the same scenario could be played out to the opposite side but the result would be the same...degenerating the vital investigation into this question into a debate of semantics rather than allowing the truth to emerge. Regardless of which side one is on, it is the truth should be the goal, not just an individual's (or a political party's or special interest group's)preset agenda. This whole question has become a political football, no longer a scientific investigation into a very important subject. Pro has, in fact, admitted that [quote]" There is no concern that unqualified people in the general public will critique climate research software. The general public cannot comprehend it."[end quote] therefore solidifying Con's position that there is no good reason to release the data he suggest to the public, but to restrict it's exposure to qualified scientists, other than to allow non-professionals, with no prestigious standing at risk, to cherry-pick data to foist upon the unsuspecting and admittedly gullible public as the absolute truth. This alone, should be enough to vote in favor of Con. Pro contends that the "hockey stick graph" contained a "major error" that caused it removal from the 2007 IPCC report. However, it was not the major error but the removal of the questionable data was portrayed by certain highly placed politicians who were admittedly opposed to any suggestion that global warming could be a real occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org... The fact that the "Medieval Warming" and the "Little Ice Age" were left out due to the suspect nature of the data and the relatively slow temperature rise shown by even the suspected data over several hundreds of years compared to the comparatively rapid rise over less than one hundred years, did not discourage the critics of the issue one bit, with the pundits again exclaiming how the figures were deliberately falsified to simply satisfy some unknown benefactor holding the enormous purse strings of the federal budget. http://www.windows.ucar.edu... Pro has said that all the data should be produced "for all to see, without a bunch of nonsense obstacles." But then, since the public wouldn't comprehend it, it would still become, not a scientific question but a political football with each side pointing fingers and claiming the other guy was wrong and the "unqualified people in the general public" would be the ones left to make the decision of which side was "right." Pro's contentions have all been supported by questionable and debatable outcomes based on illegal and unethical "evidence" that has been sensationalized to create an adversarial atmosphere surrounding the entire field of research. It is not my contention that either side is correct - just that the public exposure of esoteric (at least among the general public) methods of analysis is counter-productive to determining the truth behind the science. Therefore, Con refutes the resolution as written.

  • CON

    The human population of the United States is over 300...

    The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

    I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will start by getting some facts on the table. The United States is a country on Earth. http://www.answers.com... The world temperature has supposedly gone up about 1 degree in the last 150 years. http://www.epa.gov... The human population of Earth is over 6 billion. http://www.infoplease.com... The human population of China is over 1.3 billion. http://geography.about.com... The human population of the United States is over 300 million. http://factfinder.census.gov... The average "carbon footprint" for a U.S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com... There are about 100 million american housholds. http://www.foxnews.com... The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. http://www.foxnews.com... China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. http://outside.away.com... The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. http://outside.away.com... From these facts, we can draw three conclusions. 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this. 2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur. 3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on The human population of the United States is over 300 million. http://factfinder.census.gov... The average "carbon footprint" for a U.S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com... There are about 100 million american housholds. http://www.foxnews.com... The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. http://www.foxnews.com... China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. http://outside.away.com... The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. http://outside.away.com... From these facts, we can draw three conclusions. 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this. 2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur. 3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate. The basic calculations are as follows: 150 years=1 degree 50 years=one-third of a degree 50 years (just U. S.)=one-twelveth of a degree The definition of "a significant effect" has been established as "atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years". However, even if the U.S. were to have no "footprint", the global climate trend would decrease by 1/12 degree. Further, Obama's plan would "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." http://my.barackobama.com... So, the emissions would not even be completely eliminated, but reduced by 80 percent. Therefore, assuming the Obama plan even works, the current warming trend would be reduced by 1/15 degree. The debate is already won. Basic math discredits that the U.S. adopting Obama's Cap and Trade plan will have a significant effect on climate. I thank my opponent for this debate.

  • CON

    However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not...

    its Bernie or bust, We are suck of moderates, WE WANT REAL CHANGE

    I like Bernie, Right now it he's the most likely to win the primary and in the general election I would vote for him over Trump a hundred times over. However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about is whether or not your guy gets in as if we were on sports teams.

  • CON

    Use The Military has to do with on-the-spot situations...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    Use The Military has to do with on-the-spot situations that very well affect the state of the US. However climate, as good as it should be treated should not suck up all the tax-payers money because in the scale you are talking about would require regulation and would damage the economy because you are basically fighting the large businesses that are in America. I leave this for now. Your turn Pro!

  • CON

    The main reason that we have it as GW Exists is because...

    DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

    I will first refute my opponents arguements then move on to my own. 1. Samples taken from GW Exists page. The main reason that we have it as GW Exists is because not even 20 years ago we were concerned with Global Cooling and going back into another Ice Age and as a matter of fact we are beginning to cool with global cooling not heat up. Entering a cooling period RedOrbit 2009 (“Is The Earth Entering A Cooling Cycle?”, http://www.redorbit.com...) On the scientific research front, most news headlines tend to be aimed at showing how global temperatures are on a steady upward climb, but one report published last week appears to reveal that those upward trends may not be entirely accurate.¶ In an October 9 BBC News story, climate correspondent Paul Hudson noted that the warmest year on record was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.¶ The story goes on to state that no climate increase has been measured over the past 11 years, although emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise.¶The BBC story cited experts who claim that although the world has gone through decades of rapid warmth during the 20th Century, the earth operates on natural climate cycles, which man has no control over.¶ Additionally, experts have long debated whether the spikes in warming have been attributed to an increase in the Sun’s energy and that warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide levels, rather than the other way around. For some scientists, there is the lingering possibility that the earth could be entering a period of global cooling, rather than the widely sensationalized warming trend.¶BBC News cited a study published two years ago by the Royal Society. So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it. 2. It's too difficult to change things. During this past summer Koopin had changed the Big Issues, but it took over 3 months! The reason why is that it requires the votes inorder to pass. It must pass through several stages inorder to become a big Issue. 1. Must be nominated by a DDO member, 2. Must gain enough votes, (this varries depending on how many issues get nominated in the 1st step by DDO) 3. Must be approved by Juggle (Juggle owns the site and they won't allow changes to their site that they don't approve of). Plus there are things that are better to possibly put there like Does God Exists, Do Aliens Exists, etc...

  • CON

    While Africa may not have the resources now to pay for...

    Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change

    While Africa may not have the resources now to pay for adaptation costs of $50billion or more after another fifty years of economic growth it may do. Africa could afford the current $7-15billion if it were considered necessary.

  • CON

    Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations

    Resolved: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.

    Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations

  • CON

    The focus on prevention should not be diluted

    Resolved: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.

    The focus on prevention should not be diluted

  • CON

    Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be...

    Resolved: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.

    Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies

  • CON

    Some of the required adaptations are impossible

    Resolved: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.

    Some of the required adaptations are impossible