Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    This furthers the point that cracking down on global...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    Round four defense "This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well." Repcon First my opponent states there are hundreds of thousands of scientists within this field. That may be true, but considering each journal interviews has multiple scientist opinions changes the numbers. Furthermore, science magazine was not the only source I used. Finally, my opponent links to a long article in his/her source #1. My opponent has not met his/her burden of proof by quoting the relevant information. Having me proof a negative, that the information is not within the source would put an unfair burden on me. "he consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers" [5] As seen here there are 11,944 abstracts reviewed in this article. As for the consensus changing, my opponent is correct, that science does come to incorrect conclusions and theories are changed to meet the new information. Despite this, this not a coin flip situation. The probability is very high that the scientists are correct in their current assessment. That man-made global climate change is real. "In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that, "Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)." Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous. Goklany also says that, "Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change." This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated." Repcon Even .2% of all global deaths would be a lot. Considering "5.9 million children under age five died in 2015, 16 000 every day " [17] .2% of 5.9 million might not seem like a lot percentage wise, yet the absolute number of 11, 800 children under five annually is still high. An analogy would be that homicides involving guns don't make up even the top ten list of all cause mortality. Still, people tend to get upset about these deaths. Furthermore, showing people died from a cause is a good way to show that cause exists. Humans care about each other. My opponent then delves into whether not a scientific consensus occurred. I find this part of the argument confusing and difficult to follow. The fact that my opponent used pastebin only further complicates the matter. My opponent claims that the true consensus number is .3% as opposed to 97.1%. I doubt science magazine missed up by such a large error or any of the other scholarly peer reviewed articles. "Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said," Repcon I can understand the fossil fuel industries objections, but the fossil fuel industry appears to spreading misinformation. Most likely you are in denial about man-made global climate change is due to this misinformation campaign. "Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place." Repcon I've already proven global climate change exists, I'm only showing why there are still deniers. "First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing." Repcon Yes, but independent studies have also verified government research. "An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real." [19] "Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry," Repcon The oil industry seems to be just fine. Just the fact that they could lose 33 trililon dollars shows their wealth and influence. "First off, there are no crimes committed, and you haven't provided a source to back it up. Second off, jailing climate deniers is unconstitutional. One reason is known as the first amendment, which grants freedom of speech [8]. Another reason is that the U.S. isn't a facist government, and pretty much goes against facism, so good luck trying to get deniers arrested. Nice try, though." Repcon The climate change deniers are selling false information. They are committing fraud just for starters. "Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." [20] Number five, injury to the alleged victim as a result, many people die annually from anthropogenic climate change. This is fraud that results in the death of the victim. This is immoral. The first amendment does not protect criminals from commiting fraud. If anyone is the fascist here it is the fossil fuel industry. The poor get hit the hardest, minorities tend to be poorer. This could be seen as the mass murder of minorities on the fossil fuel industries part. Sources. 17. http://www.who.int... 18. https://skepticalscience.com... 19. http://www.cnn.com... 20. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.72
      climate: 18.89
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.45 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.55)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 12.83
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.65 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
  • PRO

    If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product...

    Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

    A belief in human-caused Climate Change requires one to assert that humans are foreign entities from outside the Universe, Or are created and implanted into the Universe through Intelligent Design/God. If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product of the Earth, It means the Earth is causing Climate Change since the Earth is a prerequisite to humanity. If you argue that humans are the Cause of Climate Change, You have to hold the belief that humans are an unnatural, Foreign, And parasitic force in the Universe, Implanted at some point by external means. If we are a natural result of Earthly evolution, Our presence here (including our intelligence and ability to develop technology) is a result of that natural process, No different than those of plants and other animals.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-Caused-Climate-Change-is-Impossible/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.56
      climate: 18.75
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)
      change: 12.81
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.45 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.12)
  • PRO

    My first source shows beyond a resonable doubt man-made...

    Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

    My first source shows beyond a resonable doubt man-made climate change exists. [0] My second and third and forth source show that climate change is a threat. [1][2] I know my argument is short, but when you got peer reviewed articles as source stating your claim, there is no reason to make a longer argument. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. " [3] Thanks for the debate. Sources 0. http://iopscience.iop.org... 1. http://www.nature.com... 2. http://www.nature.com... 3. http://www.nature.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropic-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.53
      climate: 18.73
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.80
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.45 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • PRO

    Given the excellent record of oil companies in seeking...

    Climate change

    Final round. No new arguments and no new proof. In this round we will try to conclude and to balance the arguments presented. The debate crystallized around 2 central issues: credibility/significance of authority and interpretation of available data. With regard to the first point it became clear that the debate shifted from the credibility of scientists supporting human induced GW to the credibility of scientists and groups negating GW. This was only natural since there is more to attack and defend on the side of people negating human induced GW. Con managed to show that there was suspicion about interference in science on the side of IPCC (and IPCC only). I proved that not only all the proof presented by Con is financed by oil industry (Exxon is only one example, it didn't have to pay for all the research negating GW), but also that oil industry edited a science report which was wrote by independent scientists. Con made no reference to this Machiavellian strategy in his speech. Con also conceded that GW scientists have no secret agenda. My proof showed that people that negate GW have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. Given the excellent record of oil companies in seeking the truth and helping their communities the reader can judge for himself/herself if the science provided by their scientists reflects the truth. In the end it is more probable that independent scientists are right and scientists financed by good willing oil companies are biased. It is hard to convince somebody of the truth if he is paid to ignore it. In the second part of the debate the reader can surely see that Con is very good at constantly changing his strategy to respond to my arguments. First he ignores the Venus example (round 1), then he does some calculations that I show to prove the Co2 sensitivity of climate (round 2&3), then he says that Venus is not actually relevant even if he agreed to use it as a case study (round 4). As his argument and his source don't explain why Venus is not appropriate for the debate, it should be taken into consideration when evaluating the outcome of this debate. I Venus is taken into consideration and correlated with the data provided by Con in the 2nd and 3rd round and the graph I have provided for illustrative purposes, then it shows that initial increases can lead to significant effects in warming the climate. This proves the topic I am advocating for. The proof showing an increase of mean temperatures and the argument regarding the balance of input and output were never clearly attacked by Con. Instead Con pointed out different causes that drive climate. When it was clear that it was not enough to prove alternate causes Con tried to redefine the "significant" word so that I would have to prove that Co2 drives climate change. As this is a straw man strategy I did not engage in this discussion. Instead I proved a significant effect. Also Con used a double standard with regard to the issue presented. The Co2 Theory must exactly predict everything while alternate causes don't have to. If we apply the same principle on Con causes they don't stand careful analysis. With regard to the quote from a "BBC documentary" [sic] I refrain from listing all the false data provided by the movie ("The Great Global Warming Swindle") as this would be new proof. I will only point out something that already appeared in the debate and on which both me and Con agree. The movie states that there is no financing of denial (sic!) of human induced GW. This is only one among numerous errors of the movie. It is good that I didn't have to defend An Inconvenient Truth. In the end I won credibility and I won Venus. The reader can either vote for Pro or wait to see if the Co2 theory is wrong. http://xkcd.com... I thank Con for an educated debate and the reader for his patience in reading this lengthy discussion.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.48
      climate: 19.44
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 6.61 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 12.04
      conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 1.68 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past...

    Climate change is real and caused by humans

    First of all, let me apologize for not making it clear what I meant by "climate change." Global warming is actually an outdated term when it comes to climate change, and most scientists and climate activists prefer to now call it "climate change." Although overall temperatures are gradually getting higher, many people try to argue against the existence of climate change by referencing years when temperatures have been lower than normal. This winter has been a perfect example of this. Therefore, when I speak of "climate change" I am talking about the overall shift in global temperature, weather patterns, and other climate factors that we are already seeing today. Sorry for not making that clear. Because the evidence for actual climate change is unequivocal, with 97% of global scientists supporting it, I will not take most of this argument to show the evidence. The big thing we're debating is whether or not it is caused by humans. To start with evidence that climate change is happening, let me just list a few. First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past century, with a total rise of about 6.7 inches (which may not sound like much, but globally has large implications, especially if it continues.) In addition, the rate of rising has doubled in the last decade compared with the last century, showing that temperatures are rising, and rising fast. Second, temperatures have been rising since 1880, and the most warming has happened since the 1970s, with the twenty hottest years having been since then. Third, the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past several decades. Fourth, since 1950, the number of record high temperatures has been increasing, while the number of record low temperatures has been decreasing. Fifth, since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 30 percent! I will stop listing evidence here, so I can move on to why climate change is caused by humans, but I would end by reminding Con, as I said before, the 97 PERCENT OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS THEORY. Does that not mean anything? Now for some rebuttals against why Con said before. First of all to respond to what you said about how much CO2 humans release into the atmosphere compared to the amount released by the rest of the planet. It sounds like your saying that we have released 0.00022 percent of all CO2 ever released by the earth's mantle. This number doesn't have much relevance, and I will use a different one to respond. Humans currently release about 30 GT (giga-tons) of carbon each year, while the earth emits about 780 GT a year. While this may seem to show that humans aren't the problem, it actually shows that we are. Before we began emitting so much CO2, the system was in balance, with the earth and ocean absorbing the 780 GT that it emitted. This kept the CO2 level in the atmosphere between 180 and 280 parts per million for 800,000 years. With the added human carbon emission, the CO2 level is at 400 parts per million and still rising. For another rebuttal, I would respond to what you say about how significant climactic changes have happened throughout geologic time. This is true, but this does not make the climate change happening right now any less relevant. These changes in climate you speak of are called "Milankovitch cycles", which have to do with the periodic oscillation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and changes in earth's elliptical orbit. During each of these warming cycles, CO2 and temperature levels have risen and fallen TOGETHER. Also, the whole sun theory you mention at the end of your argument was supported not by "a large body of scientific research", but by one man, Wei-Hock Soon, who got $1.2 million funding from fossil-fuel companies. I will end with this: climate change is an extremely important and urgent topic that needs to be addressed by the world. People like you (and I mean no offense) need to stop arguing, using the tiniest facts to try and disprove something that is so unanimously agreed upon by scientists worldwide. If you don't believe in science, then that is a whole different matter, but if you do, I cannot fathom why you don't understand this. If we don't have a habitable world to live and be healthy on, how can we solve all our other problems?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.47
      climate: 18.87
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.42 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.75)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.60
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.26 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)
  • PRO

    Bring external mass to the planet 2. ... Php https://www.

    Climate Change is a real issue

    I propose that Global warming is indeed a real and existential threat to our planet. As you may have heard before there were periods in our planet's timeline called "the ice age" however most of the proof we have was amassed in the last few thousands of years which helps us graph what life was like millions of years ago using geological evidence, Fossils, Ice cores and even trees (which can date back a few thousand years) and other clues to help us understand our planet's past. From this paragraph I lay my claim that atmosphere and the crest of the planet are subjectable to human influence. based statistics and chart data from climate. Gov that Carbon dioxide's ppm has had about a 1/3 increase and the annual green house gas index has had a 45% percent increase since 1990 (relative to 1990) 1. Your video evidence, The video itself states that climate change does exist and is undoubtable to most scientist in that range of field however it does question the perceived threat of global warming the human influence that be causing the problem. We can discuss more about the video in the next round. 2. I do not know what mathematics you speak of however there are three ways i can think of a few ways humans can change the mass of earth 1. Bring external mass to the planet 2. Eject mass from planet 3. Influencing earth in a way to increase or decrease intake/output of energy from our planet though lost energy (entropy) 3. Considering that I have a source that says the ppm of co2 has been at 280 ppm pre industrial revolution I have no idea what to think considering you said that it has a saturation of 80 ppm (currently at around 400 ppm) 4. I don't actually care about this person, However they are rightfully noteworthy for what i presume is a fact? 5. Ok, That paper does put up concern but I will discard it because I don't want to bother with analyzing it due to fact you yourself called it fraud. now for my own claims which I will assert some possible affects of global warming and issues in relation to it 1. Sea level rising; this if it happens is predicted to displace 143 million people not to mention disrupt international trading, Food production, Land animal/plants ecosystem and living space and the planetary absorption/reflection of the sun's rays 2. Ecosystem collapse; as you might have read many animals, And plants alike are sensitive to ecosystem change causing species to die out or become reduced which could potentially allow an invasive species to come in or a chain reaction of species dying out which will decrease the earth's biodiversity and overall planetary sustainability. 3. Carbon and other particles have been rising in ppm for the most part these last few centuries, This could have a impact on the overall health and quality of life the atmosphere could provide to us by exposing us all to an unhealthy amount of particles that might impede our body's ability to function 4. As I said before currently our planet's ecosystem is strained, You might have heard about banana farms being killed off, Or species going extinct, Perhaps the killer wasp stories or the invasive species stories. Ecosystems have long evolved in such a way to even create breeds of the same species just so it thrives and contributes to a healthy ecosystem, When species' die it leaves the local area without its overall stability and vulnerable to intrusion and entropy of the ecosystem. A shoddy comparison is the free market, Where the businesses have specialized in their niche to be the best in that field that is what life has done to thrive in their ecosystems, But if you change variables suddenly some can't change fast enough and will go under. That is what happens in both the free market and in ecosystems. https://www. Climate. Gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www. Earthobservatory. Nasa. Gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5. Php https://www. Ajc. Com/news/world/climate-change-will-internally-displace-143-million-people-2050-scientists-warn/UppkeFSlfJmPr3ay3rAF0I/

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.23
      climate: 18.20
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 13.03
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.85 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.50)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • PRO

    If I murdered you and your whole family - you'd have to...

    Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

    "No, Humans can cause climate change because we introduce new variables into the climate. " New variables? New from what? If we are products of the Earth, And have evolved through natural Earthly means, We are not "introducing new variables". . . We are expressing the evolution of the variables already set forth by the Earth. Claiming that we are "introducing new variables" implies, Again, That we are foreign to the variables that existed before our presence. "If I murdered you and your whole family - you'd have to say the Earth did it unless I'm somehow a foreign entity of the Earth and universe itself? ' Here's where the debate shifts to a "Pre-Determinism vs Free Will" debate. I actually believe we ARE "foreign entities" to the Universe, And we are placed here with the ability to express Free Will. This is the point at which climatologists will butt heads with theists. One must conclude that if Humans are causing Climate Change in a catastrophic way which endangers our presence on Earth and the Earth's health in the Universe, We MUST be foreign entities in the Universe, Since without our ability to consciously comprehend, Study, And adjust to life conditions (the warming of the Earth, For example) we must be separate and apart from the subjects we are studying. So, While the debate topic states "Human Caused One must conclude that if Humans are causing Climate Change in a catastrophic way which endangers our presence on Earth and the Earth's health in the Universe, We MUST be foreign entities in the Universe, Since without our ability to consciously comprehend, Study, And adjust to life conditions (the warming of the Earth, For example) we must be separate and apart from the subjects we are studying. So, While the debate topic states "Human Caused Climate Change is Impossible", It's accurate in the sense that it's impossible only if we are evolved entities which developed from the Earth. It IS possible that humans are causing climate change, ONLY if we are separate and foreign to the Universe, And implanted into it through an Intelligent Designer/ God.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-Caused-Climate-Change-is-Impossible/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.12
      climate: 18.62
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.13)
      change: 12.50
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.12)
  • PRO

    Humans are not capable of changing the climate for dozens...

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    Humans are not capable of changing the climate for dozens of logical and scientific reasons. If you are one of those nincompoops that believe that humans can cause climate to change please step forward to get humiliated and embarrassed by your own ignorance.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.08
      climate: 18.93
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.15
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    Claim: Donald claims climate change is a hoax. ... (Jun...

    Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

    Claim: Donald claims climate change is a hoax. Warrant: "Climate Change: It is a hoax." [0] "Climate change is a hoax. (Jun 2015) " [1] Impact: The evidence clearly shows Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. 0. http://www.pbs.org... 1. http://www.ontheissues.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.07
      climate: 18.68
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 9.41 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.96)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 12.39
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.06 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.96)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • PRO

    More people are dieing because of climate. ... It is also...

    Climate change

    I believe that it is real,you don't? Global warming is impacting the human race. More people are dieing because of More people are dieing because of climate. According to this article, https://www.epa.gov... says,"These changes will lead to an increase in heat-related deaths in the United States"reaching as much as thousands to tens of thousands of additional deaths each year by the end of the century during summer months." It is also affecting our electricity bills. According to this article,https://www.epa.gov... a warmer climate, Americans will use more electricity for air conditioning."

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/5/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.06
      climate: 20.67
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 10.39
      conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)

CON

  • CON

    While there is little doubt about the reality of climate...

    Acceleration Of Climate Change

    While there is little doubt about the reality of climate change, it is unknown how mankind will be able to adapt to it. New technology may create arable land in areas that otherwise couldn’t be farmed. Furthermore, it is possible that relocating people from areas that are flooded will become easier due to improvements in technology.

    • https://debatewise.org/2123-should-we-be-concerned-about-population-growth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.40
      climate: 18.44
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)
      change: 12.96
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
  • CON

    However, we reach a point where we can no longer develop...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    I thank the commenters who brought this to my attention. Now, since my opponent's rant does not make any real points in his favor, I will simply make my case and explain why my opponent's case does not fulfill his burden [that is, if his plagiarized first round should count at all]. As you can see, one of the things my opponent is arguing FOR in this debate is Sustainable Development. My opponent must argue FOR both Sustainable development AND climate change. I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that development is not sustainable, and I am therefore against the concept of sustainable development. Development requires that we take something that is undeveloped and develop it. However, we reach a point where we can no longer develop any further. My opponent has only helped in showing this. he indeed azrgues that development is not sustainable. He as in the source he plagiarized from, of course. And my opponent has certainly made no case in favor of climate change, which he must do to fulfill the AND of the resolution. As CON, I have many avenues of argumentation. I can argue against sustainable development, or I can argue against he indeed azrgues that development is not sustainable. He as in the source he plagiarized from, of course. And my opponent has certainly made no case in favor of climate change, which he must do to fulfill the AND of the resolution. As CON, I have many avenues of argumentation. I can argue against sustainable development, or I can argue against climate change. Or I could argue against both. For now, what I have done will suffice. I hope my opponent brings his own content to the table next round, or at least properly cites the original authors if he is incapable of making his own argument.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Sustainable-Development-And-Climate-Change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.33
      climate: 18.38
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.15 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.93)
      change: 12.95
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • CON

    The debate right now is about climate change, which since...

    Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

    Alleged Rule Violations: 5. No trolling How hurtful! trolling:make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them. (Google) I am not trying to offend anyone deliberately. If anything, you are offending me by accusing me of breaking rules. 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) The resolution is not about global warming, which was defined first round by 16k. The debate right now is about climate change, which since it has been undefined, I define as "a long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature:" (dictionary.com). I assumed we were talking about climate change as the resolution stated so. Even though he claims ">R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) ", climate change and global warming are completely different, the Little Ice age was an example of The debate right now is about climate change, which since it has been undefined, I define as "a long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature:" (dictionary.com). I assumed we were talking about climate change as the resolution stated so. Even though he claims ">R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) ", climate change and global warming are completely different, the Little Ice age was an example of climate change but not global warming. Not all change = warming. 16k thinks climate change = global warming because global warming is an example of climate change and they are therefore the same. That would be like saying because all squares= rectangles are rectangles = squares. 7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic The common understanding of climate change is changes in the climate, not necessarily warming. The definition of origin is "the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived. (google)", which basically means beginning of something, which means the start. The start of CLIMATE CHANGE dated back to millions of years ago. "Con's debate strategy is immoral, unfair, and rule breaking. " To what morality system? Back up your assertions. Unfair? Well you instigated it and made the resolution so, not I. I am adhering to the rules. I explained why I followed the rules. Conclusion Climate change (not the same thing as global warming) has been happening for millions of years before humanity was alive. To say that humans affected the climate so long ago is patently ridiculous.

  • CON

    Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. ......

    Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

    First my opponent says that I should have asked questions about the structure earlier in the debate but ignores the fact that, in the comment section, I did ask about the order of the debate and explain what I thought it meant. Therefore, I did alert my opponent to my confusion and my opponent either chose to ignore it or did not see it but either way I made my confusion known. Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made climate change you are preventing research into that area and therefore creating a huge bias in the experiments done and articles published. In conclusion, my opponent has not rebutted even one of my claims, instead they focus on the accusations of rule breaking. Due to this absence of rebuttals, my arguments stand and therefore, based on this debate, I have proven how climate change is not much of a threat, and that global warming is not caused by man. While my opponent may of used abstracts from peer reviewed articles (as they love pointing out) I have won the debate. I have given 11 points to why climate change is not due to Co2 and given countless examples of natural disaster frequency staying constant. All of the arguments I have made in this debate go uncontested and therefore prove that climate change is not man made and that the threat is exaggerated. Due to this, all voters are mandated to vote Con under more convincing arguments and conduct. Thank you for reading this debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropic-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.22
      climate: 18.53
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.69
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.35 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    Studies Contradict Man Made Warming Anthropogenic climate change is not real. Yes, the climate changes, but humans aren't the cause of it. A study by the biology cabinet shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature [1]. "On this assessment, the evidence points to a current natural climate change which happens sequentially in two main climate periods, icehouse and warmhouse." Another study was found on the Vostok ice cores, which show temperature records going back over 400,000 years. Data from the ice cores reveal an 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature [2], meaning CO2 changes came AFTER temperature. If climate change was man made, then temperature would lag behind CO2, but the opposite happens, which proves that CO2 cannot influence temperature. The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to about the same level whenever it rose significantly, which shows that it is a constant cycle and not affected by human activities. The same can be said about the CO2 levels. Manipulation by Scientists and Bribing by the Government One of the biggest science scandals, Climategate, occurred in 2009. Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia Climatic Research Unit, and statements from the emails contradict anthropogenic climate change. [3]. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate" [4]. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." [4]. The government as well as a variety of foundations donate billions of dollars to scientists to prove global warming is man made and to groups that put a megaphone to the global warming agenda. [5] This bias completely destroys the point of researching issues like climate change. Research isn't supposed to be "Let's try to prove our political agenda.". It's supposed to be a non partisan look into an issue affecting our lives. How can we accept something as a fact if the people researching the issue are lying to us. The Evidence Outside our Planet One interesting thing about the warming is that it doesn't just affect Earth. Mars, Triton (Neptune's moon), Pluto, and Jupiter are all experiencing warming. But I want to focus more on Mars, since in our solar system, Mars is the most similar planet to Earth. Both have roughly the same length of day and rotation axis [6]. Its atmosphere consists of 95% CO2 [7], and is seen to be warming. In fact, Mars warmed .65 degrees Celsius in 20 years (1975-1995) [8], whereas Earth took 32 years to warm .65 degrees Celsius (from 1975 to 2007) [9]. Even though Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2, it is still less than the amount on Earth. Environment scientist at Wright State University Jim Milks showed how the math plays out [10]. "The total mass of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is 95.32% volume x (44.0095/43.34) = 96.79% by mass CO2 96.79% mass x 2.5 x 1016 kg = 2.383 x 10^16 kg CO2 The equivalent calculation for Earth is Earth: Total atmosphere mass: 5.1 x 1018 kg Mean molecular mass of atmosphere: 28.97 g/mole % volume CO2: 0.04% 0.04% volume x (44.0095/28.97) = 0.0608% mass CO2 0.0608% mass x 5.1 x 1018 kg = 3.101 x 10^17 kg CO2 Last time I checked, 3.101 x 1017 kg is larger than 2.383 x 1016 kg by over 13x." So what could be the cause of the global warming? I believe the sun is the one responsible, as correlations between the sun and the Earth's temperature have been found when studying temperature and sun levels from 1880-1980 [11], and 1980-2006 [12]. This could also explain why other planets in our solar system are warming, as all the planets rely on the Sun. But at the end of the day, the warming is NOT caused by CO2. Sources [1]-http://www.biocab.org... [2]-http://joannenova.com.au... and also http://cdiac.ornl.gov... [3]-https://wikileaks.org... [4]-http://pastebin.com... (Screen shots of emails)* and also http://www.justfacts.com... [5]-http://www.nationalreview.com... and also http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [7]-http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... [8]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [9]-http://climate.nasa.gov... [10]-http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com... [11]-http://www.tmgnow.com... [12]-http://www.biocab.org... *The emails were only available from downloading, and taking screen shots of the emails are the easiest way to show the emails.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.20
      climate: 18.61
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.17 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.50)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 12.60
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.42 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
  • CON

    If you spend time with someone who is sick, You are more...

    Climate change is a fraud

    Well, We've made it to the final round. Let's take one last look at your objections: 1. You said, Quote, "The science profession is a very frivolous profession and is one that the community doesn't need most of the time. " You say this while typing on an electronic device built by science, Probably in a building which was designed by engineers using science. If you drive a car, That car was built by science. If you ever need an operation or an artificial limb or some other medical treatment, It will be science-based. Science does not need to "invent" disasters to be useful. You'd be hard-pressed to find a problem can't at least try to solve. The solution to overpopulation may be to colonize other planets. The solution to plastic pollution may be to find biodegradable alternatives. Science works, And you rely on it everyday. As far as your claim that science is a sort of Illuminati dictatorship, I see no evidence this is the case. Anyone can go to college, Get a degree in science and pursue a career in the field. 2. I did not say nuclear weapons could warm the Earth the way global warming does; I said they could lead to the extinction of all life on Earth. Even though this is not climate change, It still debunks your claim that humans cannot affect the environment because the world is so much bigger than us. We can destroy life with nuclear fallout, And we can warm the globe with greenhouse gases. 3. Since it's not the topic of the debate, I won't spend too much time on your coronavirus hoax claim, But I will note that your notion of all disease being caused by a bad diet cannot account for contagion. If you spend time with someone who is sick, You are more likely to get sick yourself. That doesn't work if your diet is what makes you sick. It also doesn't explain why some people test positive for viruses like COVID-19 while others test negative, Or why doctors require patients to be tested for the virus before major operations. (I had an operation recently and was required to be tested before I could receive it. ) 4. You seem to be under the false impression that there can only be one cause of climate change and causes cannot be interdependent. You also don't seem to have considered that some causes are direct while others are indirect. You're right to say that without the sun, There would be no global warming. (There would be no life at all, But we'll ignore that detail for now and assume humans could still emit greenhouse gases. ) However, You are not correct to say that because the energy which heats the Earth comes from the sun, Humans have no effect on HOW MUCH of that energy stays on Earth. Let's examine the greenhouse effect: The sun emits shortwave radiation, Which the atmosphere is transparent to, Including greenhouse gases. Upon reaching the Earth, That energy's wavelength decreases to change from visible light to heat. At this point, The sun has NO EFFECT on what happens to this energy. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, However, Do. CO2, Methane and water all absorb the shortwave radiation in their particles, Which have a high energy storage capacity, Before reradiating it in all directions, Most of which lead back to Earth. 5. Yes, Clouds can make a hot day cooler. However, Clouds are not made of water vapor but rather liquid water droplets attached to airborne dust and particulates. This means the clouds do not allow shortwave radiation to pass through like water vapor. Regardless, Clouds cooling off a hot day is an example of weather, Not climate, Being affected. Weather refers to conditions at a specific moment in time. Climate is a long-term pattern, Usually spanning at least 30 years. Whatever light passes through the clouds will convert to heat and be absorbed by the water in the atmosphere when it reradiates. Closing statement: The evidence that climate change is real is overwhelming. Among the numerous attribution studies which have been done, Perhaps the most exhaustive was by the IPCC. They examined the effect of multiple factors which could contribute to the recent warming period, Both natural (volcanoes, Solar radiation, Milankovitch variations in Earth's orbit and tilt) and anthropogenic (aerosols, Changes in land use affecting the albedo (reflectivity of Earth's surface), Human-emitted greenhouse gases). It was found that the only factor which came close to explaining the recent warming trend was greenhouse gas emissions; without factoring their effect in, The climate should be effectively stable right now and perhaps even getting cooler. In fact, The contribution of greenhouse gases is so strong that it could effectively explain the recent warming trend on its own, With NO other factors considered (although this would predict a slightly more rapid warming that we see because, Again, The other factors lead to a net cooling). Therefore, Climate change is definitely real, And humans definitely contribute to it. We have it in our power to find solutions to it, But this debate is not about which ones we should or should not employ. It's just about the objective fact that it is happening. Best of luck to you, My opponent. I've done all I can do. It's now in the hands of the judges.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.18
      climate: 18.59
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.17 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.50)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 12.59
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.42 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.33)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    OK, so those are some mighty scary factoids, but they are...

    The big lie of climate change

    OK, so those are some mighty scary factoids, but they are not facts at all in reality because they are only statements designed to strike fear in gullible people in order to dismantle industrial civilization in favor of a much smaller population controlled by the elite. Climate change is Nostradamus science and uses those kind of statements to indoctrinate people such as yourself with the belief that humans are destroying the planet, and the only way to save it is to give up control and become subservient to the globalist elites, and by the way you must pay more so they can tell you what your place is on this planet. I encourage you to research both sides of the issue and not to blindly believe the lies that Agenda 21 capitalists would have you believe. CO2 is a trace gas and the plan to create planetary fear around it was hatched in the late 70's by a man named Maurice Strong. Do your research kiddo. The hockey stick is a lie, the climate has changed before, it will continue to change, and there is nothing man can do about it, but adapt, or capitulate to the lies and be adapted for the purposes of the elite globalists that hold all the wealth, the .0001%er's.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.10
      climate: 18.24
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.96)
      change: 12.86
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • CON

    Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average...

    Climate change is real and caused by humans

    Since pro didn't clearly define climate change, I assume he means "Global Warming" . I as Con will be arguing that Global Warming is not real. The BoP is on Pro. Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change" Here are my reason as to why Global Warming is not real, 1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher " more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change" Here are my reason as to why Global Warming is not real, 1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher " more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists " in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" " suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Try and prove me otherwise. Source: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.07
      climate: 18.92
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 8.47 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.14
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)
  • CON

    My opponent hasn't offered any real argument but has just...

    Climate change

    My opponent hasn't offered any real argument but has just posted some references. Thus, My opponent doesn't even know the fundamentals of how to debate. My references in the comments section clearly show that my opponents references are total rubbish and made by deceptive and and corrupt organisations. Reference 1. Maurice Strong - Climate criminal who started the IPCC. Reference 2 Jonova - Shows that climate was hotter in 1991 and is not hottest on record in 2019. Totally pathetic debate so far as expected.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/10/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.04
      climate: 20.66
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)
      change: 10.38
      conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)
  • CON

    Data shows an "association" between temperature levels...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term "climate change" as- a significant change in the usual climatic conditions especially that thought to be caused by global warming. This 'climate change' can be caused by natural or human induced impacts. The global average temperature has risen by nearly a degree in the past 50 years. Scientists around the world have been recording temperature increases, raised ocean levels and melting of ice caps. All this is evidence that the earth is experiencing a "climate change". Many people believe that this change is primarily due to the fact that our CO2 emissions have created more greenhouse gases. They believe that there is a relationship between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2 emissions. Data shows an "association" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions but does not necessarily prove that increased CO2 levels are the most significant aspect of today"s climate change. For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind climate change. While most scientists believe climate change occurs, not all agree on the extent and relevance of human activity as an influence on climate change. While major international climate agencies all emphasise the critical role of CO2 emissions in climate change, others are not so sure. For example, some scientists have conducted research that suggests that temperatures were higher than they are today, during the Roman and Medieval periods. These ancient civilisations would not have emitted CO2 emissions as we do today, so why did their temperatures rise? Temperatures have risen and fallen for a long time. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) states that climate change over the longer term is mainly due to the amount of sun energy hitting the Earth. Slight changes in the Earth"s orbit and changes in sun ray intensity, can alter the temperatures here on Earth. Even so, most scientists still emphasise the role of CO2 emissions in unprecedented, rapid global warming. The frank fact is that climate change cannot be stopped. It is completely natural.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 30.97
      climate: 18.58
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 9.31 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.94)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 12.39
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.05 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.96)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)