Wait, my debate settings didn't work properly. Just post...
Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.
Wait, my debate settings didn't work properly. Just post something inane for your argument's and i'll set another one up.
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO yuuup
Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.
yuuup
-
PRO But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial...
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.
Round 3: Refutation of opponents argument "This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years." Point 1 Temperature and CO2 - Vostok ice-core In Con's graph associated with the above quoted text, what you actually see is Co2 levels increasing fairly consistently with a rise in temperature. However what you also see is the temperature dropping suddenly with a much greater lag in Co2 levels dropping that you see on the rising side of these peaks. If Co2 is the main contributing factor in global temperature, then how could the temperature drop thousands of years before the Co2 levels. Con's graph in this case actually serves to illustrate that Co2 levels are NOT the main contributing factor in global temperature. Point 2 The next graph provided by Con only covers the years between 1850 and 2013, We definitely see a rise in temperature along side the rise of Co2 levels, but what does this mean? In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature. The only problem is that humans were not present in our current industrial state during the peak shown between 350,000-300,000, nor were we present during the peak between 250,000-200,000, and AGAIN we weren't present during the peak between 150,000-100,000! The only peak we are present for is the one between 50,000 and current, and this last peak looks identical to all the other peaks that have occurred during this ice age! The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. Lastly, Con provided a link to Perfluorotributylamine, this gas is extremely rare less than 1 part per trillion. precisely 0.18 parts per trillion, that is less than 2/10ths of 1 part per trillion. I can't even begin to explain how rare that is. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation. They are based on a consensus which is fueled by our desire to "Not break the planet" I understand this desire, there is no argument that pollution is good. But blaming naturally occurring events like interglacial periods on pollution isn't going to help us better understand our environment. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... If our Co2 centric models are actually the least accurate, then how can we expect speculative models like the "NO HUMAN INFLUNCE" model to mean anything but "PLEASE SUPPORT US EVEN THOUGH OUR SCIENCE IS WRONG" Consensus is only evoked when the science isn't strong enough.
-
PRO As for the cellphone argument I would like to see some...
humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing
In regards to varroa mites and tracheal infections that is an understatement. They are a huge huge part in the decline of bees. As a beekeeper I have seen the damage first hand. But my biggest argument is that these mites and diseases are a result on our global economy. Honey bees in the areas where these diseases/mites were at one point immune to these. But with the importing and exporting of goods, along with our reliance on a handful of bee breeds (which man bred) has made the bees more susceptible to disease and made the disease/mites a worldwide problem. As for the cellphone argument I would like to see some supporting evidence. as far as I know the research done recently has debunked that hypothesis. Their was a study where bees under powerlines were having trouble finding their way home. But that was only the hives directly under, which with that much electricity and bees uncanny and unknown sense of direction and navigation, its no surprise. the amount of electromagnetism from a cell phone or a few cell phones doesn't amount to enough to confuse a handful of bees let alone the trillions and trillions that have disappeared. as for finding a technical solution to the problem that is not the answer. we have been doing that by genetically modifying crops and coming out with new medicines to give our bees. But once the varroa mites or infections become resistant we have to develop a new cure to compound onto the many we are already using. which is itself a huge stressor for the bees and is part of their decline. we need to find a solution and im afraid technology is the cause not the answer
-
PRO History shows that energy demand keeps growing even in...
Climate change is best solved by energy efficiency, not CCS
Vaclav Smil, PhD, Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, stated the following in his May 2006 statement "Energy at the Crossroads," during the Conference on Scientific Challenges for Energy Research in Paris, available at www.home.cc.umanitoba.ca: "The obvious question is why it should be even attempted given the fact that a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions could be achieved by several more rational, mature and readily available adjustments... [T]technical fixes cannot provide a lasting resolution. History shows that energy demand keeps growing even in the most energy-saturated affluent societies: encouraging worldwide diffusion of this trend (new China, and then India, aspiring to replicate the US) and trying to fill the supply through scientific and engineering ingenuity is not a formula compatible with maintaining a viable biosphere. Obviously, poor countries need more energy; but the rich ones should, sooner, rather than later, think about engineering rational reductions in energy use. All economies are just subsystems of the biosphere and the first law of ecology is that no trees grow to heaven. If we are not going to engineer thoughtful, gradual reductions, we run a considerable risk that the biosphere may do the scaling-down for us in a much less desirable (if not catastrophic) manner."
-
PRO Global warming is already occurring and there are no...
Irreversible climate change makes geoengineering unavoidable.
There is a good chance that global warming is irreversible. Global warming is already occurring and there are no plans to reduce greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise, despite reductions in new emissions. Geoengineering, therefore, is the likely last resort.
-
PRO In the case of climate data, it is used as a basis for...
Governments should require that funded climate data be posted
My case for requiring the posting of publicly-funded data related to climate research boils down to three points: C1. It will allow review of the data for error by other scientists. C2. It will put peer pressure on the originating scientists to use better methodologies, such as software configuration control. C3. The public has a right to the products of work paid for by taxpayers. Con did not address any of my three points. Instead, he introduced two negative contentions. N1. Pro claimed that public controversy would continue regardless of whether data is disclosed or not. I never claimed that disclosure would end public controversy. I don't doubt that there are people among the public who will not alter their positions regardless of what is revealed. We should not care about that. Dissent is protected, even if it is not well-founded. However, until there is disclosure of what climate crisis advocates have done, there is no possibility of achieving a consensus on it, either by the public or among scientists. We may not ever get a public consensus, but there is a possibility of getting closer agreement among scientists. That will not happen until disclosure of research data and methods is accomplished. N2. Con goes on to claim, "I will show how unlimited public access to all, and especially preliminary data will only serve to further fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time." So for example, if the official position is that the earth is the center of the universe, allowing access to data that shows the earth revolves around the sun would similarly, "fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time." "Our time" in that case being the Sixteenth Century. It is precisely because a scientific issue is important that data ought to be disclosed, not suppressed. Con implied I wanted "preliminary data" disclosed. The resolution makes it clear that disclosure of source data and processing software is required only one month *after* publication. No preliminary data need ever be disclosed. It sometimes happens that a particular line of scientific inquiry proves ultimately fruitless, in which case no results are published and nothing ever need be disclosed as a consequence. When a result is published it is believed by the originator to be reliable. In the case of climate data, it is used as a basis for public policy decisions. If it supposed to be the basis for decision making, then it is appropriate that the means by which it was derived be disclosed at that time, or soon thereafter. Returning to my contentions, to which Pro offered no rebuttals: C1. The revealed CRU e-mails show an intent to further subvert the peer review process. Peer review is performed by qualified scientists. Climate crisis advocates have a well-established pattern of attempting to conceal data. The most notorious example is the bogus "hockey stick" in which global temperature were claimed to have been stable for a thousand years, until they rose exponentially in the past few decades. The hockey stick graph was included in the 2001 IPCC report as proof of CO2 caused global warming. The graph was doubted from the outset, because it did not show the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, major periods of natural climate variation. With enormous effort, skeptical scientists finally managed to extract the source data from those behind the hockey stick construction and to show the specific errors in data processing that produced the spurious result. Organizations such as the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics subsequently conducted a massive review of the scientific literature and firmly established the existence of the past climate variations. The UN removed the hockey stick from the 2007 IPCC report. The process of uncovering and correcting the errors took close to a decade, because the originating scientists would not divulge their data or detailed methodology. CRU was heavily involved in preparing the data for the bogus hockey stick. The present resolution would prevent such concealment and would enable skeptical scientists to conduct a proper review of important research. The errors in the derivation of the hockey stick might have been revealed before it was included in the 2001 IPCC report. Currently there is considerable controversy over recent temperature data that show sharp recent temperature rises. Allegations include claims that much of the recent proof of global warming is derived from the rings of three trees in Siberia, which is claimed to be given a high weight in multiple sets of climate data. Originators of the data are extremely reluctant to reveal their data and methods. The current resolution would help resolve the issue. Note that NASA has refused to comply with FIA requests made in 2007. The present resolution would have required contemporaneous disclosure. C2. The accepted professional practice for industry is to use a software configuration control system. This is applied both to program code and to data files. So if one wishes to recover the results at some specific time in the past, the configuration control system will automatically reconstruct the software and data sets for the desired day. CRU could not do that, so they could not comply with FIA requests even if they wanted to. To my knowledge, no one has claimed that being unable to reproduce past results is an acceptable practice in the scientific world. Forcing immediate direct disclosure solves the problem in one sense, because outsiders can then track the data. However, once scientists at CRU and elsewhere realize they will be forced to disclose, by far the easiest way to comply is to do what they should have always done -- implement a configuration control system. The US military systematically requires its contractors to implement such systems, and they sometimes require that the government be able to access the system remotely in real time. In other words, the military does not allow disorganized software development. While the resolution does not require such high standards of scientists, the resolution strongly encourages improved practices. The benefit is that the taxpayers get higher quality work for their money. C3. Why has Con failed to address the public's right to get access to what they have paid for? I have allowed that there are certain exemptions to the general rule of disclosure. Climate research does not fit any category of exemption. FIA requests have not been denied under any claim of exemption, the requests are just arbitrarily delayed or ignored. The resolution would put an end to concealment through delaying tactics. The CRU e-mails include internal requests to destroy past e-mail files so they could not be uncovered by FIA requests. CRU also admits to having destroyed original climate data, although they claim they did so to save storage space. Immediate disclosure puts an end to the destruction of scientific data to conceal it. Any one of my three contentions is sufficient to support the resolution. So far Con has addressed none of them. The resolution is affirmed.
-
PRO Instead of having your immune system breaking down the...
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
Instead of having your immune system breaking down the boogers in your nose, Which only costs extra energy for your body which in turn has to be replenished by you eating extra food just because, You could just aswell pick your boogers and recycle them back into nature and in doing so save on our environment by reducing the need for extra food to grow which at the end of the day only takes it's toll on our environment on account of the extra fossile fuel needed to harvest, Process and distribute said food to our grocery stores.
-
PRO That's as maybe, But still the environment takes a toll...
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
That's as maybe, But still the environment takes a toll if you abstain from engaging in the "noble art of cleansing your nasal cavities from unwanted debris of sort" as the British Academy of Boogerpickering so eloquently would have put it.
-
PRO As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources. As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification. Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example. " It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11] Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate. Sources 10. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
CON
-
CON Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful
-
CON The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be...
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be global and involve everyone
-
CON That is less than 1% OF 1%, it is 20% of 1% OF 1%, and...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
We aren't upsetting any balance, we changed the hearts atmosphere by 0.002%, do you know how insignificant that is? That is less than 1% OF 1%, it is 20% of 1% OF 1%, and our temperature increased by 0.6 Celsius over 76 years. Global warming is not a threat.
-
CON My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
CO2 accounts for 400 ppm of our atmosphere, or 0.04% of the total gas in the atmosphere, and only 5% of CO2 emissions are man made {2}, this means that mankind has altered the atmosphere by approximately 0.002%, with CO2, a greenhouse gas that is actually very weak. {3} My opponent also claims that money is worth more than humans, even though this is a nonsensical argument. My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of infrastructure in the name of a false threat which will unemploy millions. The real reason for all of this global warming propaganda is to cripple the economies of developing nations to prevent them from getting a better quality of living. My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones, then he talks about how humans are more important than money. Humans are more important than false threats. {1}. https://www.theguardian.com... {2}. http://www.ncpa.org... {3}. http://notrickszone.com...
-
CON Trying to put a price on carbon unfairly punishes...
We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...
Trying to put a price on carbon unfairly punishes ordinary families. Making quite poor people pay more to heat their homes, cook meals, drive their vehicles, etc will push many of them into poverty. We already pay high taxes and this is just another way politicians have found to get their hands in our wallets. By contrast, big business makes plenty of profits and can afford to spend some of them meeting new emissions regulations.
-
CON If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy...
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven
I accept. Before I begin, I wish to define a few things. Mutation - Change in the DNA sequence of a gene [1][2][3] Gene - Unit of heredity in a living organism [4] I also wish to stipulate that Pro accept, and does not question, the theory of evolution itself, nor the idea that genes are passed down from generation to generation. If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy to do so on another debate. Genes, as per the definition above, are the units of heredity in an organism. They control the characteristics of said organism. Microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies of genes in a gene pool over time[5], can and does occur without mutations. However, macroevolution, evolution that occurs above the level of species[6], studies speciation and the change from one species into another over time. How, one might ask, does a chimpanzee and human split off from a common ancestor and become incapable of breeding? Their genomes are different, i.e. they (chimps) do not have the same genomes as we do. They do not share about 4% of their genome with us[7]. How, then, did their genome become different from ours when we shared a common ancestor? Answer: their DNA sequence, and ours, changed. This If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy to do so on another debate. Genes, as per the definition above, are the units of heredity in an organism. They control the characteristics of said organism. Microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies of genes in a gene pool over time[5], can and does occur without mutations. However, macroevolution, evolution that occurs above the level of species[6], studies speciation and the change from one species into another over time. How, one might ask, does a chimpanzee and human split off from a common ancestor and become incapable of breeding? Their genomes are different, i.e. they (chimps) do not have the same genomes as we do. They do not share about 4% of their genome with us[7]. How, then, did their genome become different from ours when we shared a common ancestor? Answer: their DNA sequence, and ours, changed. This change in the DNA sequence is exactly what a mutation is. It simply, by definition is what happens, and here is a distinct case. More cases of the same thing occuring (stretching out to all the number of species ever existing on the planet) can be elaborated on if need be. Now that a specific case of this occuring has been elaborated on, the general concept behind it can be discussed. An organism differs from another by its traits, which are determined by its genome. Different traits mean a different genome, which means that at some point, the genome of the common ancestor of the two organisms was changed. This change in the DNA sequence, the genome, of an organism is what mutation is. Therefore, there is direct evidence for mutation being the source of genetic diversity. The concept behind evolution supports this. Back to you, Pro.
-
CON Firstly, some types of emissions are more damaging to the...
Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exc...
Because it is not possible to achieve a perfect market in carbon emissions, regulations are to be preferred. Firstly, some types of emissions are more damaging to the environment than others, but this is hard to recognise in a carbon tax or trading system. Regulations can be more targeted in order to deal with the biggest problems first. For example, government policy has required vehicle exhausts to become much less damaging to the environment over the past few years, and can also demand that companies (e.g. power generators) update their equipment and working methods. The deadlines and potential sanctions accompanying such government demands can also focus investment into research and development which the market alone would not provide. \ Secondly, the existing global marketplace is quite imperfect. Many countries (e.g. China, India) lack the kind of open economies needed for market mechanism to operate effectively. Unless efforts to curb carbon emissions are to be put on hold until their economies are sufficiently reformed for market incentives to have a chance of working, regulations will have to be the main method of emissions reductions in such places. And on a global scale market incentives are hugely distorted by such oddities as the exemption of aircraft fuel from taxation.
-
CON Punctuated equilibrium explains why forms change so...
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven
I wish to thank my opponent for his arguments. Pro claims I did not have sources for R1. I did. I, unfortunately, forgot to add them, and so I added them to the commments section instead. If the voters wish to penalize me for it, so be it. I apologize, but Pro still should have brought up why he wasn't responding to them in R2, as I would have directed him to the comments. Pro brings up a catastrophe argument. This i addressed with punctuated equilibrium. I said that as environments change (which is part of any environmental catastrophe), the forms that used to be tolerable were not longer tolerable, and evolution, or a break from stasis, happens[1]. Punctuated equilibrium explains why forms change so rapidly after catstrophes, and why previously succeassful forms die out. Pro then attacks punctuated equilibrium, calling it untestable and a "metaphysical idea". I do not understand where this comes from. Punctuated equilibrium can be tested. If, in the fossil record, we were to identify a place where the environment changed rapidly, we could then test it. If animal forms continued to evolve slowly and did not really react to the change, punctuated equilibrium is wrong. If the survivors rapidly diversify to take advantage of their new environment, punctuated equilibrium is roght. We can identify such a time and place; it is the K/T extinction event, where the dinosaurs died out. That, for sure, was a huge change in environment. Right after the K/T event, there were approximately 40 genera and 10 families of mammal[4]. 10 million years later, there were between 130 and 200 genera, 78 families and about 4,000 species[2,4]. That is rapid, punctuated diversification from a mammalian body plan that had worked well since their emergence in the Triassic - 150 mya before K/T. In 10 million years, they had diversified to almost 8 times as many families of mammals. That is evidence and is a scenario in which the predictions of punctuated equilibirum proved true. Archaeopteryx, according to Pro, is an "odd creature", completely isolated and not surrounded by close relatives. I would direct readers to Ornitholestes, a dinosaur with a similar body structure, living at the same time and place, who was closely related and is a viable predecessor[9]. Later, Jeholornis, the first known bird, appeared, and is very much a more advanced version of Archaeopteryx[10]. Pro, it seems, did not read the article on the nylon-eating bacteria. The article clearly showed that a double replication followed by a frameshift mutation caused the change in the enzymes, allowing them to consume nylon. Pro talks of transposase enzymes, which function to move genes around the genome[3]. They do not change the gene or mutate it in any way unless they, too, are deficient because of a mutation. Pro then asks why extremely sturdy bacteria have not evolved. The answer is they have. Take extremophiles, which can survive in temperatures as high as 125 degrees Celsius, as low as -15 degrees C, a high a pH as 9 and as low a pH as 2[6]. Pro's questions about why malaria hasn't evolved to handle colder temperatures do not take into account that the type of host may also be important, and making malaria resistant to cold would not solve that issue. As for Pro's comments on fruit flies - here, he is not discussing macroevolution. He is not discussing mutation. He is discussing microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies (an allele being the different versions of a gene[7]) in a population[8]. The study was not creating any mutations, and the flies' genomes were unchanged. They were changing allelic frequencies in the population, and it is completely unrelated to the resolution. Thus, the resolution is negated. I wish to thank my opponent for this engaging debate, and Vote Con! Due to the length my sources will, again, be posted in the comments.
-
CON Despite scaremongering about “water wars”, international...
Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea…
Despite scaremongering about “water wars”, international conflicts over access to shared water resources have been avoided. In fact there have been nearly 300 international water agreements since 1948, showing that a cooperative approach which treats water as an essential common good is highly successful. Indeed, the regular technical interaction required to negotiate quotas, share data, and set up common institutions as part of international water agreements can all help to promote better political relationships between neighbouring states that may have histories of hostility.
-
CON Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro...
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.
The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state obviously would not be in a position to do.[1] Therefore if Scotland retained UK opt outs there would be only a positive change in relationship with Scotland receiving greater representation in EU institutions through having its own seat in the Council of Ministers, possibly its own Commissioner, and also a reallocation of European Parliamentary constituencies that would increase its representation there (and paradoxically increase rUK representation as well).[2] [1] Noon, Stephen, ‘Euro membership’, 10 November 2011, http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/euro-membership.html [2] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3017_scotland_s_future.pdf p.7
