Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to...

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

    Ok first off you have proven in other debates that you don't read between the lines that well. Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems. Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion. I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause. A separate point aside. Avery and Singer fail to address several important factors Solar Dimming Carbon accumulation and acceleration I mean the point where they day the Atmosphere is "saturated with CO2" is wrong. There is still C02 being pumped into the air today, right now. Plus they were funded by Natural Gas.

  • PRO

    Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which...

    global climate change is human caused

    Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/global-climate-change-is-human-caused/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.72
      climate: 10.40
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.20 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.01)
      change: 8.33
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.99)
  • PRO

    If we were to drastically decrease anthropogenic CO2...

    Anthropogenic climate change and increased CO2 levels are beneficial to humans and plant life

    I thank my opponent for accepting the debate. And yes, you can use round 1 for whatever you wanted. Just one round needed to be without argument. Since you chose round 1 to be the round without argument, you can use all of the rest of the rounds for argument. Now then... Global photosynthesis is on the rise and so is world plant growth Research suggests that since the industrial revolution when CO2 emissions from human activity started, plants have been enjoying greatly increased usage of photosynthesis for the past century and a half, leading to tremendous plant growth worldwide[1][2][3]. As anyone who has taken a basic biology class knows, plants need CO2 to survive, and plants have been thriving thanks to the increased CO2 levels. Yes, there are some negatives to global climate change, but for plants, it's pretty much only positive. The current concentration of CO2 is perfect for plants, and even a slight increase would still be okay Plants need an atmospheric concentration of CO2 to be betwen 300-500 parts per million[4], the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which just recently reached this level, is 400 parts per million[5]. Prior to human influences on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, we did not have this much, and 400 ppm is the ideal average of CO2 plants need. If we were to drastically decrease anthropogenic CO2 emissions, this could lead to a drop in the overall concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere, and thus this could be detrimental to the plant life on earth if the drop was significant. As can be seen here, Earth has had an overall history of CO2 declining in concentration through the millions of years of earth[6]. If humans didn't emit CO2 through the industrial revolution, and it never happened, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations were declining throughout our history, it could have been very possible that plant life would all die on earth in the future. In a way, human CO2 activity is saving our plants. Basically, since we are currently at 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should try to maintain this, and I worry that many environmentalists' actions would end up bringing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere down. Because CO2 emissiosn are beneficial to plant life, it helps entire ecosystems Since plant life is on the rise, this leads to more food for animals, and more animals can thus thrive. With more animals thriving, and more plants thriving, this leads to more food for humanity, so benefiting plants benefits humanity. More people die from cold weather than hot weather The cold kills 20 times more people throughout the world than hot weather does.[7] If anything, this is evidence that the earth is too cold and needs warming. Additionally, many geographers I hear believe we are still in an "ice age" because the earth is not supposed to have any ice on it, yet we do have ice in Greenland and antarctica as well as in mountains in various areas.[8] So, basically, I conclude that if the earth were warmer, we would have fewer human deaths, and this would be beneficial to humanity. Addressing common problems with global warming: 1) Oceans will rise Now, I know many people are concerned with the ocean rising due to global warming and some would argue this is a bad thing. I don't think it really is that big of a problem, however. The oceans are not rising suddenly, and it would be over a long period of time that it happens. People will have plenty of time to move out of areas that are going to be flooded with water from the ocean rising. I argue that the benefit global warming gives us: where we would have fewer deaths from weather, is worth having a small percentage of humanity moving somewhere else. 2) Acidity of the ocean going up I know some people will also be concerned with the acidity of the ocean going up. This is a problem, but if evolution tells us anything, it's that sea life will likely be able to adapt to this, as long as the change in acidity of the ocean is not too quick. We can try to lower our emissions if it's the case that the ocean's acidity is rising too much. I honestly don't know too much about this particular subject, so I don't know if scientists consider the ocean's acidity to be rising too fast for marine life to survive, but maybe my opponent can shed some light on this. If it's the case that it is, keep in mind that I'm not necessarily saying we should keep the current rate at which we cause global warming, but just that global warming in general is beneficial to humans and plants. Even if a little global warming is beneficial, that is fine, and I'm sure the marine life will be able to survive slight changes in the acidity of the ocean. 3) Deaths from heat-related illnesses will rise This is true, but since there are many more deaths by cold(see above), those deaths would likely go down at a faster rate than the deaths from heat will go up, so over all, I believe more people will be saved from global warming than if we didn't have it. I believe I have sufficiently argued my case, and I rest my case. Sources: [1] http://www.ucmerced.edu... [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://www.climatecentral.org... [4] https://fifthseasongardening.com... [5] https://climate.nasa.gov... [6] https://socratic.org... [7] https://www.sciencedaily.com... [8] https://www.sciencedaily.com...

  • PRO

    Just curious as to see what your argument will be! ......

    Climate Change is real and caused by humans

    Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!

  • PRO

    A pledge on Wednesday from President Xi Jinping of China...

    Climate Experts Applaud Plan, Buit Say China Could Do More

    A pledge on Wednesday from President Xi Jinping of China to help fight climate change is expected to send a strong signal, since meeting global emissions-reduction goals will require sustained efforts from Beijing in curbing the country’s addiction to coal and greatly bolstering sources of renewable energy, analysts and policy advisers say.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/climate-change-deal-reached-china
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.46
      climate: 14.52
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 6.62 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 3.94
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)
  • PRO

    Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump mocked Swedish...

    Trump mocks teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg

    Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump mocked Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter late Monday night after the 16-year-old excoriated world leaders for not doing enough to tackle the climate crisis. "She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see!" Trump posted on Twitter, replying to a video of Thunberg's speech at the United Nations climate action summit earlier in the day.

  • PRO

    NBC News has decided that climate change is no longer an...

    NBC News host says no air time for climate 'deniers' on "Meet the Press': 'Science is settled'

    NBC News has decided that climate change is no longer an issue that has two sides.

  • PRO

    The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the...

    Unconventional oil increases climate change

    A report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) finds that exploitation of North America’s shale and tar-sand oil reserves could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by up to 15% (Unconventional Oil, 2008). This calculation is not only based on the additional amount of carbon dioxide that using this fossil fuel will generate, but also the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the extraction of oil and the amount of so-called ‘carbon sinks’, natural resources that absorb carbon dioxide, destroyed. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian oil sands would be about 82% greater than average crude refined in the U.S. on a well-tank basis.(United States Environmental Protection Agency , 2010)

  • PRO

    FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and...

    Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

    The full resolution is: "In all countries, governments should impose a condition on climate research grants and aid related to climate research that source data collected or analyzed under the grant, and all software developed under the government support shall be posted on the Internet within one month of publication or announcement of the results by any means." The resolution was abbreviated to meet the character limits, and the full resolution is the one to debate. The purpose of this resolution is address one of the issues raised by Climategate, the scandal in which e-mail and software at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia. http://www.climate-gate.org... It's not known whether the CRU data was exposed by a hacker or by a whistleblower, but however revealed, issues persist. The scientists were revealed to be trash-talking about climate crisis skeptics, and apparently conspiring to subvert the peer review process. Those issues are put aside here to discuss another problem, the concealment of software and data from the scientific community. The revealed documents includes a README file of a scientist, "Harry," trying to reproduce the climate data published by CRU, documenting enormous difficulty doing so. the file is posted at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com.... CRU's mission is to obtain temperature data from various sources around the world, validate and correct the data, and convert it into a gridded format useful for scientific and practical purposes. The validation and correction steps are important because the raw data includes clerical errors, instrument errors, and errors due to the heat effects of new construction near the individual collection stations. "Gridding" converts the temperature data from the randomly located collection stations to regular increments of latitude and longitude using interpolation techniques. CRU performs all of the processing functions. For research on global warming, small errors are important because the total amount of global warming examined is on the order of only a degree per century. Moreover, scientists look for "natural experiments" in which local conditions may have local climate effects. For example, rapid growth of a city many increase local pollutants or local CO2 levels, and scientists like to examine the possible local effects on temperature. Britain has a Freedom of Information Act (FIA) similar to that in the United States. FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and other data developed at government expense. In Britain, someone filed a request for the data used to support claims of CO2 global warming. CRU had great difficulty complying, Climategate revealed, because the software and data files were such a mess that they could not reconstruct the results they had published. he tale of woe begins with a guy copying 11,000 files and trying, unsuccessfully, to make something of them. He discovers, for example, that there are alternate files with the same name and no identification of which file is the one that should be used, or why. NASA has similar responsibilities for climate data in the United States, and a similar FIA request was filed for supporting climate data. After nearly three years, NASA has still not complied with the request, and a lawsuit is now threatened to attempt to force compliance. http://www.thenewamerican.com... I suspect that the problems of data compliance at CRU and NASA are due to professional incompetence, not a conspiracy to cover up errors they know to have been made. What has been revealed at CRU clearly shows incompetence. Moreover, there is nothing novel about incompetently written software. A product of human nature and schedule pressures is the method of hacking at software until it appears to work, then calling it done. In the commercial world, demands from users limit incompetence through calls for bug fixes, and ultimately user abandonment of one vendor in favor of another. Those mechanisms do not apply to climate data. In the case of climate research, the tendency will be to hack at the software until it meets the expectations of developer, in this case the global warming believers at CRU. They could be innocently making a dozen small errors that tend to inflate temperatures in recent times, and no one would question the results, because expectations are met. The remedy lies in immediate public disclosure. If the software must be posted regularly, which it will have to be because new results are released regularly, then peer pressure will greatly encourage sound software engineering practices like the use of software configuration control systems. Moreover, the details of the methodologies employed for processing and analysis will be subject to peer review. CRU deals mainly with data rather than climate models, however the resolution applies to climate modeling software as well. The basic physics of carbon dioxide only accounts for about a third of the global warming it is claimed to cause, and that's not enough to cause a climate crisis. The models contain multiplying factors that are not verified by experimental measurement. All of the mechanisms should be subject to peer review and public scrutiny. A few institutions have made their model code public, but only a very few. Aside from the concerns for good science and good professional practice, the public has a right to access what it paid for, for no reason beyond the fact that they paid for it. There are exemptions allowed in FIA legislation. The exemptions are for national security, independent proprietary data, and information sealed in lawsuits. None of the exemption apply to climate research. The requests to CRU and NASA were not denied under exemptions, they just not fulfilled. Requiring disclosure before publication or within a month after publication will guarantee that the public gets what it has a right to. Climate research strongly affects public policy, so while good professional practices are important in all areas, the situation addressed by the resolution is exceptionally important. The resolution is affirmed.

  • PRO

    The order also pauses new oil and gas leasing on federal...

    Biden orders government to buy carbon-free power and electric cars in sweeping climate executive order

    President Biden directed agencies to purchase more carbon-free power and electric cars in a sweeping executive order Wednesday meant to have the government weigh climate change in nearly everything it does. The order also pauses new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, delivering on a campaign promise but creating immediate and fierce tensions with the oil and gas industry and congressional Republicans. Biden’s order builds on executive actions he took on his first day in office, when he began the process to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and targeted...

CON