Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice...

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

    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

    We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence...

    Chuck Todd Refuses To Give Air Time To Climate Deniers: ‘The Science Is Settled’

    “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”

  • PRO

    The site goes on to say that the climate change is about...

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

    >I thank my respected opponent for his response. It was extremely clever, but I can negate it. >Please note that for the purposes of the remainder of this debate my opponent has already claimed that we are "assuming the Obama plan even works." >Facts we both agree on: All of my opponent's sources and data derived from sources except for EPA on climate change in the last 50 years (I will touch on this right now). >EPA claims that global climate change has been a 1degree to 1.7 degree increase in the last 150 years. I will average these two numbers to get a 1.35 degree change. It goes on to say that (as my opponent neglects to tell you) the temperature has increased 1 degree since the mid 1970s (I will say 1975 for these purposes). I would now like to present figure 1: http://www.epa.gov... According to figure 1 (which came from my opponent's site) the increase in temperature has been linear since the 1970s. It has increased since 1975. The site goes on to say that the climate change is about 3.2 degrees of increase per century on this linear track. My opponent seems to be basing his information on 50 years so 3.2/2 = 1.6 degrees per 50 year period. Please note that all measures are Fahrenheit. >Due to my last remarks, my opponent's calculations of the following are moot: "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" Corrections: 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1.35 degrees. The U.S. is responsible for 27% of this. 2. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, 73% 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 Obama plan, however, is global. Calculations are as follows: 150 years = 1.35 degrees 50 years = 0.45 degrees New information: Barack Obama will take office in 2009 Again, my opponent and I are discussing the next 50 years. My opponent's measurement of a significant effect is a quarter if a degree. This is flexible and can be a quarter of a degree less than what would happen without the Obama plan, not a quarter of a degree colder than the previous years. More calculations: 2009 + 50 = 2059 2050 – 2009 = 41 50/41 = 1.22 1.22(80%) = 97.6% The next 50 years will linearly reduce 97.6% of carbon emissions. >Now the part of the Obama plan that my opponent neglects to mention: "Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues." I will say for the purposes of this argument that the "world's largest emitters" are the top 10 emitters. These collectively emit 82.4% of the world's carbon emissions. >I will now make some more calculations: 0.45(0.27) = 0.1215 0.1215(0.976) = 0.118584 0.25 – 0.118584 = 0.131416 82.4 – 27 = 55.4(%) 0.45(0.554) = 0.2493 0.131416/0.2493 = 45.8(%) >Due to my above calculations, if Obama creates half of the effect he is making in the United States in the other 9 countries alone(it could be even more than this); he will have more than half of a percent effect on the climate in the next 50 years. >Thanks to my correct calculations, we can say that the Obama plan will have a significant effect on the climate. As my opponent said (though now applying to me), "the debate is already won… I thank my opponent for this debate."

  • PRO

    In actuality, we observed .32 degrees of warming, almost...

    Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon

    Models can accurately reproduce past climate changes: Climate models have successfully simulated many aspects of the climate changes observed during the instrumental period. Most notably, models have reporduced the increase in surface air temperatures remarkably well (1-2). Scientists have also found a high degree of similarity between the simulated and observed evolution of global lower stratospheric temperatures during the past 25 years (3). Good agreement between model projections and observations has likewise been reported for decreases in Arctic Ocean ice cover. As one researcher concluded, “The simulated decreasing trend in average sea ice extent for 1970–1999 (–2.5% per decade) is very similar to observations" (4). In addition, model projections are consistent with observations of changes in ocean heat content since 1960 (5). Models have predicted changes in atmospheric temperatures nearly perfectly: In 1988, Dr. James Hansen predicted future atmospheric temperature changes using several different emissions scenarios. His second scenario most closely resembled the observed pattern of carbon dioxide emissions. Models which employed this scenario predicted that we should have seen .33 degrees Celsius of warming between 1988 and 2005. In actuality, we observed .32 degrees of warming, almost exactly what the models predicted (6). Climate models can accurately simulate important feedbacks: Climate models predict that atmospheric water vapor will increase as the surface warms. Observations have independently confirmed these predictions. Satellite measurements indicate that the total atmospheric water content, which is dominated by water vapor in the lower troposphere, has increased at a rate consistent with model predictions (7-8). Interestingly, upper tropospheric water vapor has also increased during the past two decades (9). Climate model simulations indicate that cloud cover changes will most likely amplify greenhouse gas warming. Observations have confirmed that these predictions are also correct. As Dr. Andrew Dessler noted, “The short-term cloud feedback has a magnitude of 0.54 ± 0.74 watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive...Calculations of short-term cloud feedback in climate models yield a similar feedback” (10). In a few instances, models have been even more accurate than data: Observations themselves are not without error. In a few cases, model simulations have been even more accurate than data. For example, climate models in the 1990s could not reproduce the full extent of the Northern Hemispheric cooling in the 1950s as indicated by observational data. However, a careful analysis later revealed that the data had been distorted by a change in the way ocean temperatures were measured after World War II (11). In another example, satellite measurements in the early 2000s showed essentially no warming in the middle levels of the atmosphere. More direct measurements by balloons and radiosondes likewise showed no warming there. However, a "tropospheric hot spot" had been predicted by all models clear back to the 1970s. This alleged discrepancy was resolved to the satisfaction of most modelers in 2005, when several researchers documented errors in the sets of observations. For example, the observers had not taken proper account of how instruments in the weather balloons heated up when struck by sunlight. Once these errors were accounted for, it was evident that the middle levels of the atmosphere had indeed been warming up (12). Conclusion: As Dr. Michael Mann remarked, “Current climate models do a remarkably good job of reproducing key features of the actual climate...They also closely reproduce past climate changes. We therefore have good reason to take their predictions of possible future changes in climate seriously” (13). References: http://ipcc.ch... http://150.229.66.66/staff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf http://atmosdyn.yonsei.ac.kr... http://www.cpom.org... http://www.sciencemag.org... http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... http://geotest.tamu.edu... http://www.cgd.ucar.edu... http://www.dca.iag.usp.br... http://geotest.tamu.edu... http://www.atmos.colostate.edu... http://www.geo.utexas.edu... Mann, Michael E., and Lee R. Kump. Dire Predictions. New York: Pearson Education, 2008. Print.

  • PRO

    Dessler’s findings: My opponent claims that Dessler’s...

    Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon

    My opponent's quotes: In the previous round, my opponent presented several quotes from experts who seemed to believe that models are not accurate enough to be relied upon. However, many of these quotes were taken from seriously flawed studies or biased sources. For instance, let’s consider his second quote which came from a scientific paper published by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer in late 2007. This paper purported to demonstrate that modeled and observed tropical temperature trends disagree to a statistically significant extent. However, other scientists have identified major flaws in this study. As Dr. Ben Santer and his colleagues stated, “The author’s conclusions were based on the application of a flawed statistical test and the use of older observational datasets.” (1) Once these errors were corrected, Dr. Santer found that model simulations matched the observations very closely. Let’s also examine my opponent’s third quote which came from an expert affiliated with the National Center for Policy Analysis. Interestingly, this conservative think tank has received thousands of dollars in funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch Industries. (2-3) As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. (4-5) Therefore, the quote my opponent provided should not be weighted heavily. Hansen’s projections: My opponent claims that I compared Hansen’s projections to only land temperature data. However, if my opponent had examined my sixth reference, he would realize that this is not the case. In reality, I compared the model projections to the GISS land-ocean temperature index, which includes data from all over the globe. My opponent also alleges that I compared the temperature data to model projections for Hansen’s “C” scenario. However, as I explained very clearly, I actually compared the data to the more realistic “B” scenario. Clearly, I was not "cherry-picking" data, as my opponent alleges. Dessler’s findings: My opponent claims that Dessler’s findings have been refuted by a study conducted by Roy Spencer. However, this is not the case. Spencer’s study was published nearly four years ago, while Dessler’s study was just released six months ago. Moreover, Spencer analyzed only five years of satellite data while Dessler considered an entire decade of observations. Spencer himself has even stated that,"The time scales addressed here are short and not necessarily indicative of climate time scales". Thus, we can be virtually certain that Dessler’s results are much more robust than Spencer’s. Dessler's conclusions are also supported by a variety of studies showing that Lindzen’s IRIS hypothesis is incorrect. (6-8) As Lin et al. stated, “The observations show that the clouds have much higher albedos and moderately larger longwave fluxes than those assumed by Lindzen et al. As a result, decreases in these clouds would cause a significant but weak positive feedback to the climate system, instead of providing a strong negative feedback.” (6) Upper Tropospheric warming: My opponent claims that the troposphere is not warming as rapidly as models predict. He cites two studies to back up this claim, both of which were published over four years ago. Obviously, new satellite and radiosonde datasets have been developed since the publication of these studies. These new datasets show enhanced tropospheric warming due to improvements in our ability to identify and adjust for biases introduced by changes over time in the instruments used to measure temperature. (1) As one study concluded, two newly adjusted radiosonde time series indicate that the upper troposphere is warming at a rate of .2–.3ºC per decade. This is almost exactly what the models have predicted. (9) Other independent observations also indicate that the upper troposphere is warming at a rate consistent with models. For example, one study used measurements of wind shear to estimate temperature trends. This study concluded as follows: “We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65º K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change.” (10) In summary, the discrepancies that my opponent pointed out were most likely due to inaccuracies in the old observational datasets, not fundamental model errors. This is just another example demonstrating that models can actually be more accurate than data. Response to the Mount Pinatubo eruption: When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it provided a meaningful opportunity to evaluate how accurately models could predict the climate response to an increase in sulfate aerosols. The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption. Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were verified. (11) Simulations of the planet’s energy imbalance: Global climate models have accurately simulated the planetary energy imbalance. As Dr. James Hansen concluded, “Our climate model...calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.” (12) Conclusion: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded, “There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.” (13). References: http://www.realclimate.org... http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.greenpeace.org... http://www.bmj.com... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... http://journals.ametsoc.org... http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net... http://journals.ametsoc.org... http://journals.ametsoc.org... http://www.nature.com... http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... http://ipcc.ch...

  • PRO

    Syria announced on Tuesday that it would be joining the...

    Syria joins Paris climate deal, leaving US as the only country opposed

    Syria announced on Tuesday that it would be joining the Paris climate change agreement, leaving the United States as the only remaining country opposed to the deal after President Trump's June 1 decision to exit from the accord.

  • PRO

    Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable...

    Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

    I thank my opponent Mr. Adams for Offering up a hopefully exciting and fun debate! I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions. My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming. "Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol." http://timeforchange.org... From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture. "This graph best represents what is taking place world wide. Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now." The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up. What has happened recently? "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution." The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE. The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions. To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide. The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site. http://www.epa.gov... Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here. Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: "CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions" What exactly do you mean by human emissions? For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions. None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1. I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like. Good luck to you Mr. Adams in this debate, and I look forward to a fun and thought provoking debating process!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 19.06
      climate: 11.74
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.45 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • PRO

    In that case, Here is a model that measures the average...

    Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.

    I see the point you are trying to get at is that we have no evidence, As far as current effects are, Focusing more on the questionability of prediction models. In that case, Here is a model that measures the average global temperature up to 2018. It's clear from the graph that the global temperature is increasing at an exponential rate: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ But as for your skepticism on the weight that our civilization takes for the problem of climate change, Here also is a graph showing the CO2 levels in the air throughout the 1980s, To the year 2017: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ Notice that despite the larger timeframes between the two graphs, Both correlate. Around the point were CO2 emissions go up, The temperature for the corresponding year also goes up. I think it's obvious that this drastic rise in CO2 is our fault, Considering the first graph starts to show the temperature rise in the 1860s, The tail end of the industrial revolution.

  • PRO

    The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that President...

    Media reports Trump to re-enter US in Paris climate agreement — then Trump admin. responds

    The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that President Donald Trump is exploring avenues to not withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, citing comments from an international climate policy official at a global warming summit in Montreal.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/climate-deal-confusion
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.88
      climate: 14.74
      conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 8.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)
      change: 4.13
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.73)
  • PRO

    And although an identical global tax level for carbon...

    Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exc...

    Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exception of the European Union, regulations are set by individual countries so there is a great risk that each state will come up with its own set of regulations in an attempt to limit carbon emissions. Not only will this be unnecessarily complicated and raise the costs of compliance considerably, there is also a risk that states will have an incentive to introduce only lax regulations in an attempt to attract more business investment than other, more demanding jurisdictions.\ By contrast, market mechanisms can provide a more coordinated and effective international response. A cap and trade system will sit alongside existing international financial and commodities markets. Cap and trade also provides incentives for developing countries to participate by offering them a chance to profit by adopting green technologies and preserving their forests. And although an identical global tax level for carbon emissions seems as unlikely as coordinated regulation, agreement on the principle of carbon taxation would be much easier to achieve. Individual countries could set their own carbon tax rates if they wished, but as they will all be taxing the same damaging emissions the overall impact in the market will be to provide a powerful push to reduce emissions.\

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/2929-carbon-emissions-market-vs-regulatory-approaches/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.83
      climate: 11.34
      conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 5.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.96)
      change: 7.49
      conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)

CON