Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    I refuted paleoclimate, showing that past records...

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

    - kingd breaks two rules in this debate. He breaks #6 -- no K's of the topic -- #7 -- no semantics -- and arguably #5. Based on rule #10, I win the debate. - kingd drops both consensus and sensitivity, conceding them as true. - I refuted paleoclimate, showing that past records actually support AGW and that he misrepresented his sources > showed today was abnormally warm for this recent interglacial cycle > king's graph shows correlation - his whole argument is a semantical ploy on origin and climate change. But is fails. >R1 established "global warming" (synonomous to "climate change" in the literature) was defined to the late 1800s - present. > so the origin of that climate change was indeed mankind > pro wins > king assumes I am talking about change over the past 500 million years. R1 proved this to not be the case. Con's debate strategy is immoral, unfair, and rule breaking. Not to mention incorrect.

  • PRO

    Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature...

    Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

    Please stick to only the man-made part of this argument. I am not denying the world is heating or any possible effects of that. I am saying that man does not cause it. Also, quoting a consensus is NOT science. I want to hear your argument, not some random scientists. Science is based off of hard facts and evidence to support claims, not a consensus of random scientists whether they studied climate or not. Here are my reasons: 1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate: Many people I have met say, "Man made global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof." 2.The computer models don"t work The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...... 3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now. 4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time. 5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now: Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com...... More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades. The political side of things: This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject. The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey. Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way: https://www.youtube.com...... The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today. The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...... The final proof: And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real: It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Man-Made-Climate-Change-Is-Fake/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.40
      climate: 18.23
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 7.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.62)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 11.17
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations...

    climate change is fake

    It's real Alright, here's the big question. How do we prove this argument true or false? Let's look at the facts. One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations such as National Geographic and NASA have given provable theories about this topic. Also, there is no corruption involved with a person understanding the fact that the chemicals we burn every day of our lives are killing us. Our planet is not infinite, it's resources will eventually dry up, and the human race will overpopulate the planet without the proper measures. The fact we know and understand this crisis has nothing to do with our morality and our honesty. My opponent in this debate is straying to far into biased waters, and if he's not careful, he'll get swallowed up by the giant shark called FAILURE. Climate Change exists, and it IS killing our planet.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/climate-change-is-fake/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.40
      climate: 17.14
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)
      change: 12.26
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both...

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

    US, Japan, China, Germany, India, and Brazil are among the largest and most powerful countries in the world. This list, and a larger list of G20 states, includes both developed and developing nations. China, India, and Brazil are the most notable large developing nations in the G20. Due to their size, economic power, and emissions (now and in the future), they share an equal responsibility to fight global warming. For the same reason, they share an equal responsibility with developed nations to apply their leadership role in their respective regions to lead the fight against climate change. If they do not, surrounding countries - fearing a loss of competitiveness in particular - will not take strong actions to combat global climate change. Therefore, it is important that all of the most powerful nations in the world - developed or developing - lead their regions in the fight on global climate change.

  • PRO

    I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate....

    The political science of climate change

    I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate. In his initial comments, CON has made several claims, which I will list here for clarity’s sake: 1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues propaganda in an attempt to “strike fear into gullible people,” with the purpose of “creating green guilt.” 2) The phrase 'global warming’ is used by “modern eugenicists” for the purpose of reducing the population of the United States, which they see as “fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers.” 3) Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are being used as pawns by the “globalist elite” who are trying to limit the world population to those like themselves. These are some quite interesting claims; I look forward to CON providing evidence for them.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.30
      climate: 17.05
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 12.25
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)
  • PRO

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed...

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed countries are developed – since they contributed more to climate change, they have a greater obligation to resolve it. Climate change has largely been caused by long-term emissions by developed countries. While China is now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and other developing countries emissions are rapidly rising historically the vast majority of emissions have been from developed nations. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[1] As CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for a long time, about 50% will be removed within 30 years, but 20% or more may remain for thousands of years, the history of emissions is as relevant as current emissions.[2] Since they contribute more of the damage, and since each nation has a responsibility for the harm it has caused, developed nations have an increased obligation to combat climate change. [1] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions... [2] Inman, Mason, ‘Carbon is forever’, Nature Reports Climate Change, 20 November 2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

  • PRO

    6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. ......

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    R3 Rebuttals Opponent's statements will be in bold and italics, mine in plain text. "Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]" medv4380 Correct, here is why. "Evaporation is one of the two forms of vaporization. It is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state. It is the opposite process of condensation. The thermal motion of a molecule of liquid must be sufficient to overcome the surface tension and evaporate, that is, its kinetic energy must exceed the work function of cohesion at the surface. Evaporation therefore, proceeds more quickly at higher temperature, at higher flow rates between the gaseous and liquid phase and in liquids with lower surface tension (i.e. higher vapor pressure)." [6] "Imagine Mann has made a mistake" medv4380 This paragraph is conjecture. My opponent has not proven Mann has made a mistake. In the next paragraph notice my opponent's word choices. Dissenters and alarmists. There is a reason why climate change deniers are called deniers. This is because deniers use a thought process called denial. Denial is when a person comes to a conclusion and then looks for facts to reinforce the conclusion. Skeptics take the full body of evidence and then come to a conclusion. Scientists are skeptics. Therefore, the correct language is deniers and scientists. I'm skipping some sections because either the argument is truthful or so vague I don't see how it related to the debate. "Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation?" medv4380 Temperature, precipitation, and evaporation are all linked. The link between temperature and evaporation is already shown. [6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. Rain forests are known for being hot and humid. The east Antarctica ice sheet is increasing in sea ice mass due to increase precipitation which is due to increased temperatures. Therefore, higher temperatures increase both precipitation and evaporation. " However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases." [7] Now that warming temperatures causes an increase in both evaporation and precipitation has been established, the temperature in the 70's is where to look. "Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased." [8] Man-made aerosols was responsible for the cooling trend in the 70s. Thus the temperature decreased despite Co2 increasing, lowering evaporation and precipitation. This is a cherry picking fallacy on my opponent's part. By focusing on the period of cooling caused by aerosols in the 70's and ignoring the overall trend that more Co2 increases temperature which increase precipitation and evaporation. Cherry picking "Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [9] "It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation." medv4380 You are correct, that some glaciers are gaining mass. Yet, the overall trend is that glaciers are losing mass. The graph above shows that overall glaciers are losing mass. [10] Here's a graph of the temperatures to further prove that temperatures were low in the 70's but the overall trend is upwards after the 1950s. [11] "Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data." medv4380 This last paragraph is jumping to conclusions. My opponent does not sufficiently explain how these phenomena effect climate change. Fact: Increases in Co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change. Myth: Other causes are the primary driver. Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. [12] My opponent uses various sources. One is the low crediblity Heartland institute. "Factual Reporting: LOW Notes: The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. " [13] "The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects). " [14] Another source is wikipedia. "Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. "[15] Finally, my opponent uses Ivar Giaever. "While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows." [16] Ivar Giaever is a fake expert. Giaever lacks the credential and experience in climate change. Sources 6. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://skepticalscience.com... 9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 10. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. https://www.climate.gov... 12. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... to conclusions 13. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 14. http://rationalwiki.org... 15. isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 16. http://www.snopes.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.23
      climate: 17.55
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 11.69
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.98)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically...

    That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

    First off the arguments are not irrelevant. Second I would like to say that the fourth round will be a closing statement and no new points shall be brought up, sorry I forgot to say this in round one. Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 10.Acad"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 10.Acad"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science 24.African Academy of Sciences 25.Albanian Academy of Sciences 26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute 27.American Academy of Pediatrics 28.American Anthropological Association 29.American Association for the Advancement of Science 30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) 31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 32.American Astronomical Society 33.American Chemical Society 34.American College of Preventive Medicine 35.American Fisheries Society 36.American Geophysical Union 37.American Institute of Biological Sciences 38.American Institute of Physics 39.American Meteorological Society 40.American Physical Society 41.American Public Health Association 42.American Quaternary Association 43.American Society for Microbiology 44.American Society of Agronomy 45.American Society of Civil Engineers 46.American Society of Plant Biologists 47.American Statistical Association 48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 49.Australian Academy of Science 50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology 51.Australian Coral Reef Society 52.Australian Institute of Marine Science 53.Australian Institute of Physics 54.Australian Marine Sciences Association 55.Australian Medical Association 56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences 58.Botanical Society of America 59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences 60.British Antarctic Survey 61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 62.California Academy of Sciences 63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences 64.Canadian Association of Physicists 65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences 66.Canadian Geophysical Union 67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 68.Canadian Society of Soil Science 69.Canadian Society of Zoologists 70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views 71.Center for International Forestry Research 72.Chinese Academy of Sciences 73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences 74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) 75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences 77.Crop Science Society of America 78.Cuban Academy of Sciences 79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters 80.Ecological Society of America 81.Ecological Society of Australia 82.Environmental Protection Agency 83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts 84.European Federation of Geologists 85.European Geosciences Union 86.European Physical Society 87.European Science Foundation 88.Federation of American Scientists 89.French Academy of Sciences 90.Geological Society of America 91.Geological Society of Australia 92.Geological Society of London 93.Georgian Academy of Sciences 94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences 96.Indian National Science Academy 97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences 98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology 100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand 101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK 102.InterAcademy Council 103.International Alliance of Research Universities 104.International Arctic Science Committee 105.International Association for Great Lakes Research 106.International Council for Science 107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences 108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society 109.International Union for Quaternary Research 110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics 112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences 113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences 115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology 116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts 117.l'Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 118.Latin American Academy of Sciences 119.Latvian Academy of Sciences 120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences 122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology 123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts 124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina 125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic 127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka 128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers 131.National Association of State Foresters 132.National Center for Atmospheric Research 133.National Council of Engineers Australia 134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand 135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 136.National Research Council 137.National Science Foundation 138.Natural England 139.Natural Environment Research Council UK 140.Natural Science Collections Alliance 141.Network of African Science Academies 142.New York Academy of Sciences 143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences 144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences 145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters 146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey 147.Organization of Biological Field Stations 148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences 149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology 150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change 151.Polish Academy of Sciences 152.Romanian Academy 153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain 155.Royal Astronomical Society UK 156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 157.Royal Irish Academy 158.Royal Meteorological Society UK 159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research 161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan 162.Royal Society of Canada 163.Royal Society of Chemistry UK 164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom 165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 166.Russian Academy of Sciences 167.Science and Technology Australia 168.Science Council of Japan 169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics 171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography 172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 173.Slovak Academy of Sciences 174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts 175.Society for Ecological Restoration International 176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 177.Society of American Foresters 178.Society of Biology UK 179.Society of Systematic Biologists 180.Soil Science Society of America 181.Sudan Academy of Sciences 182.Sudanese National Academy of Science 183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences 184.The Wildlife Society International 185.Turkish Academy of Sciences 186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences 187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 192.World Federation of Public Health Associations 193.World Forestry Congress 194.World Health Organization 195.World Meteorological Organization 196.Zambia Academy of Sciences 197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences And military's and etc... Cant list every organization or I'd run out of room. - Graphs http://www.procon.org... http://www.procon.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.desmogblog.com... http://catefaehrmann.org... - Conclusion Ever since the Industrial Age earths temperature has been rising at an alarming rate, and we should be aware. Also You brought up CO2 in almost every paragraph. As the UN climate summit approaches, we must remember that over 50% of climate change is caused by gases and pollutants other than CO2. Like black carbon, CFC's, and etc.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-Humans-Are-Causing-Climate-Change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.20
      climate: 17.56
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.64
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.48 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.96)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    They generate artificial disasters such as climate change...

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    CO2 is a trace gas. It constitutes only a meagre 0. 04% of the atmosphere. Water vapour contributes 85 % of the Earth's cooling effect, Whereas CO2 only contributes 15 % of the heating effects. The Earth is not a green house. A green house is an enclosed environment which has little or no air circulation. On the other hand, The Earth is an open system where air is free to circulate. The air is constantly moving from the cooler polar regions to the warmer tropical regions. The Earth acts like a thermostat and is definitively nothing like a greenhouse. Note - The term greenhouse was used before the invention of the thermostat. A thermostat uses water to regulate temperature so that the temperature remains constant. This is how the Earth climate system works. The more heat that is generated creates more cloud which in turn provides more cooling. Thus, The Earth's temperature remains constant. The science community likes to cling to the past when it suits them. This is because the science community needs to feel important and wanted. They generate artificial disasters such as climate change and Corona Viruses to create income and work opportunities. This is done to make their lives better with more jobs, Better wages and career prospects due to an abundance of research work. Thus, You will never find any scientists that disagrees with climate change otherwise they will get black listed and find themselves unemployable. Note - I do understand CO2's properties because I have studied CO2 graphs and read research papers for the last 10 years on this matter.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.13
      climate: 17.52
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.60
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    The first round will just be for acceptance. ... I...

    Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity

    This will be a debate about whether man-made climate change is currently occurring and how it will affect the earth. The first round will just be for acceptance. I believe climate change is occurring, is caused by man and will have severe effects on the ecosystems of earth and would like to have a discussion with someone who disagrees.

CON

  • CON

    Where will we be in 50 or 100 years if we fail to take...

    Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

    No one is denying that climate change is upon us. The present effects of global warming and other forms of climate change are well documented. As we see it, the people of the world have two choices: --shore up our defenses against the worst effects of climate change and hope that we won"t eventually be incapable of coping with the rising seas, floods, droughts, disease, etc. that are even now threatening communities on every continent, or --focus our energies and resources on preventing further climate change damage to mitigate the impact on humanity and planet. Given the ominous fact that there is nothing that can be done to immediately halt and reverse the effects of climate change, humans need to take the long view. Where will we be in 50 or 100 years if we fail to take steps now to prevent even greater climate change? The effects we are feeling now are so threatening to human health and the ecosystems we depend upon that it is inconceivable we could survive many generations at the current rate of damage. The alternative to real and concerted prevention of further climate change, is to accept a future in which the people of Earth who are not killed by heat waves, mosquito-born diseases, floods, famines and the other inevitable effects of global warming find themselves fighting over the few verdant patches of land high enough to escape seas that have risen [find stat] feet once the polar ice caps have melted completely. The preparation position is a fatalistic one. It accepts the eventual demise of humankind. The only viable position is the prevention of further climate change in hopes of reestablishing ecological balance in the world. No amount of raising levees, recycling water, or distributing mosquito nets will be sufficient over time to save our race and the world from the climate change damage we have put in motion. Given a choice between preparing for the worst, and attempting to prevent the worst--humanity"s best hope lies in prevention. We must do everything we can, starting now, to halt the shameful dependence on fossil fuels, the destruction of tropical rainforests, and pumping of hydrocarbons into the air.

  • CON

    Blind Faith is you asking someone to believe you, and not...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    I have to start this final round off with thanking who's made this argument much easier. Had then President-Elect Trump not terrified climate change scientists into archiving the data that they had kept away from the public this final round wouldn't be as climactic[16]. I'm surprised that my opponent didn't use the time to incorporate changes that were starting to come out just as I was wrapping up the previous round. On February 4th retired NOAA Scientist Dr. John Bates came forward damning NOAA for it's failure to Archive data like study used to refute the 'pause' argument for the Paris Agreement[19]. By the 5th it made it to the House Science Committee[18]. Thomas Karl has since admitted to failing archive the information before publication, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine, Jeremy Berg, where the study was published has said: "Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations. We will consider our options. It could include retracting that paper." [17] How can a study be published as Peer Reviewed when the study was never archived before publication so that fellow NOAA scientists or the public could review it? Blind Faith is you asking someone to believe you, and not providing a way to verify it. My opponent seems to be under the misconception that Figure 4 supports his argument. He better hope that Figure 4 is wrong because the high temperature in 2012 is that same as the high temperature in 1936. The clear trend from 1936 to 1980, or possible 1996, would mean that as we increased CO2 temperature dropped, but then reversed course after that. That would be a contradiction and refute the CO2 argument. Without the weighting, Figure 4 doesn't say anything for either argument. It's odd for my opponent to accuse me of cherry picking the evaporation data in his defense, but not in his rebuttal of my argument. Perhaps he knows he failed to refute my claim, and realized that data proves my claim beyond all doubt. In his mind, it has to be a fallacy, and he just happened to pick Cherry Picking without proof of Cherry Picking. In spite of the referenced source the GHCN dataset from NOAA. In spite of the publicly available source code. In spite of the Evaporation Data labeled, All Station, and Year Round stations he insists I must be cherry picking data. The only reason for the two sets is that some stations are seasonal resulting in some confusing output in the later years of the graph. Both are still in sync before 2005. Even given that I openly admitted that the Evaporation Set alone might just be too small since we only measure evaporation near lakes and reservoirs. That's why Figure 2 exists which collaborates the data in the evaporation data. He refuses to attack the GHCN dataset because doing so would throughout his entire argument since NOAA bases all their climate change argument on it. He refuses to attack the methodology because it is sound. He is left only with a Cherry Picked, false, unsubstantiated claim of Cherry Picking. Where is a dataset more inclusive than the GHCN? Where is his counter evidence showing what data I missed? In the ultimate sense of irony, my opponent and I already agree. He is just drowning in cognitive dissonance making him unwilling to look at the data for himself. Man-Made Global Warming is the only Man-Made Myth here today. Thank you, and I urge you to vote and share this debate. [16] http://www.cnn.com... [17] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [18] https://science.house.gov... [19] https://judithcurry.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.95
      climate: 16.20
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 11.75
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.59 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    On to my first contention, According to the Library of...

    developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

    I will be using the social contract where a country only has an obligation to its self "The EPA Has been funded highly in the last 10 years but has come up with little to no change to the environment what so ever" 2010 BBC Article I stand in firm negation on the resolution, Resolved: Devloped Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. My case is backed by two contentions: Developed countries already fund unsuccessful environmental programs Contention 2: There are other issues that are a higher priority to developed. On to my first contention, According to the Library of congress the EPA gets an annual budget of eight billion dollars a year, and rarely if ever come up with successful solutions to pollution or climate change. The BBC has reported multiple time of the success rate of the Epa and The british environmental conservation agency stating that both programs are failures and taxpayers should not be paying for them. As I have shown, developed countries have Environmental programs, countries like the USA, Britain , Canada, Australia, France,Spain and Portugal all have developed environmental programs, so countries have already accomplished the resolution. Also according to the British Environmental Conservation agency, climate change is only studied 3 months out of the 12 as stated by professor Martin Anthony of Cambridge university " what is the point of studying climate climate change if there is no way to control it. So if there is no way to control climate change why should developed countries make it a priority. This brings me to my next contention: Developed Countries have higher priorities. NASA States that climate change is a natural occurrence and as Professor martin Anthony of Cambridge university stated that there is no way to control climate change. Why should climate change be so high on the agenda? It shouldn"t, so the money used to fund these environmental agency"s in developed country"s can be used elsewhere, such as war effort, poverty and healthcare, the eight billion dollars that goes to the EPA can be used to minimize poverty, fund wars and fund healthcare. Climate change should not be a high priority in today agenda. In conclusion I have proven that Developed country"s already have funded programs that involved in environmental study and that climate change is not a priority to developed countries. With that I urge a vote in negation on the resolution. Thank you

  • CON

    Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment...

    Climate Change is happening

    Note: following argument copy and pasted from a previous debate of mine. Con FRAMEWORK My opponent is stating a specific scientific theory is true, and as the side making a positive assertion. She holds the burden of proof. If I simply negate her arguments without forwarding any of my own that should be enough to win this debate. On top of her having the BOP she has another obstacle to overcome. She has to prove 2 things while I merely have to prove 0. She must prove that A. Global warming is real and B. that it is also man made. So if she proves global warming is real but fails to show that it is man made than she has lost this debate. The norm is to make opening arguments in round 2, rebuttals in rund 3 and counter rebuttals in round 4. I will not deviate from the norm this debate. CLIMATE GATE A lot of the global warming debate has been made political. Scientists are engaging in a cover up to sweep all evidence that climate change isn't occurring, under the rug. It's no mystery that these scientists with all their university indoctrination into liberal thinking are themselves big liberals. Global warming is used as a political tool to increase the size and role of the federal govenment and if it's proven to be false then it's a big tool that is lost. It's sad but too many scientists are willing to engage in this coverup to help their team win. The truth simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is thateir team can hijact the eenvironmentalist movement for ther own selfish causes. In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence. "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) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2] The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3] "Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s! ... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4] "Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5] I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate. GLOBE IS NOT COOLING According to a report by the Daily Mail. The MET office has released data showin no global warming for the last 16 years. The temperature of the Earth has been remaining relativiley steady. [6] Here is a cart to llustrate my point. It's pretty much scientific consensus that the Earth has not been heating up for the past 10 years and longer. There can not be global warming if the globe isn't warming. In fact the term climate change is slowly replacing the term global warmig so that any change in the Earths climate can be used to suit the left's political agenda. ARCTIC ICE The arctic ice has increased by over 50% according to a report by the ESE. [7] Despite the fact that Al Gore and other advocates for global warming state that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now.[8] Strong evidence actually shows that the ice cap are getting bigger and stronger. It's only a matter of time beforethey start claiming it's global cooling again like they did in the 40s through 70s and advocatng for nuking the poles like they did back in that time. I'm glad people were smarter than to take the liberal's advice to nuke the poles then. I wish they were justa little bit smarter now. CONCLUSION Rebuttals are coming next round. I'll leave his round by stating that the Ice caps are getting bigger and have not disappeared like people who say global warming is real predicted 5 years ago. Also the Earth's temperature is also pretty steady sowe have multple forms of evidence that the Earth is not warming and when you add that on top of the uncovered emails showing a conspiracy in the scientific community to fudge numbers perform trickery and just plain lie to foward their theory, it's pretty obvious global warming is a lie. I leave you with some predictions people who have forwarded this theory to advance a political agenda have made "Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades " up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated" Al Gore 1992 "senior research scientist" David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within "a few years," snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event" in Britain. "Children just aren"t going to know what snow is," he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."[9] Here is the funny thing aboutglobal warming alarmists not only will they say increased temperaues on Earth will make snowing a thing of the pas but when it does snow real heavy they also somehow blame that on global warming. So what is it? Does global warming lead to more snow or less? "Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the "greenhouse effect" would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."[9] sources 1. http://web.archive.org... 2. http://www.americanthinker.com... 3 http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4 http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 7. http://www.esa.int...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-happening/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.93
      climate: 16.65
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.10)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.03)
      change: 11.28
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)
  • CON

    I've looked at all the data, The statement that climate...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    I've looked at all the data, The statement that climate change is caused by man is irrefutable the evidence is all on one side, And i mean real science not psuedoscience

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.91
      climate: 16.62
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.38 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 11.29
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
  • CON

    The political side of things: This is a big topic so I...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I am here to debate the MAN MADE side of climate change. I do not disagree that the world is warming, I only believe the current warming trends are exaggerated and people are freaking out over a natural process. Man Made Climate Change, The FACTS: 1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate: Many people I have met say, "Manmade global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof." 2.The computer models don"t work The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... 3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now. 4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time. 5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now: Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades. The political side of things: This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject. The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey. Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way: The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today. The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... The final proof: And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real: It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.84
      climate: 17.20
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 10.64
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.31 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries...

    Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    To begin with, the definition of developed countries is incorrect. A developed country is a highly industrialized country. Your first contention states that developed countries are largely responsible for climate change. However, this is a broad generalization. Many of the countries that contribute to climate change are still developing because of their large debts. Also, there is a generalization that every country release a significant amount of of CO2. My opponent's case focuses on global warming rather that climate change. My opponent is ignoring that climate change is also caused by uncontrollable changes in our orbit around the sun and solar emissions. My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries are the only one's with capabilities to act on climate change. However, most Developed Countries do have a large national debt. We need to focus on the country's success before fixing the world. His last contention states that the greatest impact will come from when the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses make reductions. However, again this is a huge generalization. Not all developed countries release a signifigant amount of CO2 or even can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change. Your example of the US is irrevlevant. The United States cannot afford to cut back on the use of nonrenewable resources. You provide solutions that are inconvenient. For example, what if you live far from work, or couldn't afford organic foods. My opponent states that cooling the ocean floor only costs $14 billion. However most countries, with a massive debt cannot afford this. For example, take my previous argument that Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. Shouldn't the country try to fix itself before fixing the world? The Norway example does not support the Pro argument. He states that it is more of a reason mitigate the effects of climate change. However, isn't it more of a reason to fix ourselves before the world. My opponent conceptualizes the view of how to mitigate the effects of climate change without providing a valid solution. Obviously $14 billion is not cheap and we should not invest in the world when our own country has economic issues that are not caused by Climate Change. Moreover, the action to mitigate climate change is more of a moral right to an individual rather than a country.

  • CON

    If these predictions based on the scientific findings are...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I like how you reference a democrat to put doubt into my "conservative" site. This is a scientific issue, not a political one. Supporting evidence that the claims of manmade global climate change are dramatically overstated: We've seen record total amounts of ice, snow, and cold. Polar bears are thriving. Oceans are rising much less than predicted. -Further note here. I've shown multiple times that the predictions of those claiming manmade climate change is going to destroy the world have been incorrect. If these predictions based on the scientific findings are incorrect, perhaps some of their overall claim is also incorrect. If I said something was going to happen and here's what we expect to see to show it is happening, but then none of my predictions came true, you might assume my overall premise/hypothesis is also incorrect. Again, I'm not saying manmade climate change is not real. We are warming the client. I, again, take issue with the "threat" that everyone is blowing out of proportion. Further evidence: 31,000 Scientists signed a petition saying they do not support CATASTROPIC global warming. http://www.petitionproject.org... (including over 9,000 with PhD's. Perhaps there's more to the story? Nature still produces FAR more CO2 than man. 2014 NASA satellite supports this. Everything portraying us destroying the world centers years earlier without adequate research and a documentary (cited by my opponent) where it's shown to have inaccuracies and flat out lies to get the agenda across. Urban Heat Island effect leads to falsely high readings which global warming catastrophists run with.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./5/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.52
      climate: 16.37
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 11.15
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.12)
  • CON

    Hey there, I believe that climate change is not the...

    Climate Change is the greatest threat faced by humanity today

    Hey there, I believe that climate change is not the greatest threat facing humanity today. We have more important problems to deal with like covid, Nuclear, Etc. Pls accept this challenge. . . . :)

  • CON

    Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to...

    Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

    Opponents arguments: We have a moral obligation to future generations. We as people have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change to our future generations. Our moral obligation is to lesson suffering for our children and their children and their children. Also climate change is man made so it is our job to mitigate it. Climate change is a small part natural but man has played a big part in increasing the effects. Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to mitigate the effects because they have played the biggest part in climate change and undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so. For those reasons you should vote pro. We don't have a moral obligation since we should be focusing on using less than a fifth of the money needed to mitigate the effects of climate change (500 billion dollars) to eliminate poverty and world hunger extend my arguments VOTE CON