Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    The Ghink Chronicle. ... Each $7 spent on basic family...

    Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering

    Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.25
      climate: 16.20
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    R2 rebuttals "I would like to thank my opponent for the...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    R2 rebuttals "I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue." YatesUni Agreed. I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim. "Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved. Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences. Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim. "Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved. Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest [1], are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences. Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global climate change. People in the middle east died in summer of 2015 due to unprecedented heat waves. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. Global climate change is real and a threat. Thanks for the debate. Sources 1. http://www.greenpeace.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.24
      climate: 16.19
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 11.05
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • PRO

    Weather forecasts are often wrong, and the science of the...

    Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

    Climate change is a religion, as we will not be alive to see the truth of the predictions. Weather forecasts are often wrong, and the science of the immediate future of a local climate should be more easily predictable. Climate change will happen, the direction, warming or cooling, is unpredictable. The true path of a storm is unpredictable. Diblasio is a fear monger along the lines of his political god, Gore.

  • PRO

    Contention I: "The economic impact of environmental...

    Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    Contention I: "The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries." Pro makes several highly unsupported conjectures in his C1. The main point is that government attempts to curb the effects of global warming would have negative effects on the economy. Among his conjectures include the arguments that EPA regulations would cause "a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods" as well as "result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars". Now besides the fact that Pro has neglected to source or substantiate his claims, his point would still fall moot if the effects of global climate change will be worse than the effects of environmental regulations. And scientific consensus supports this position, including the position of the European Academy of Science and Arts[1], the American Association for the Advancement of Science[2], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[3], among several other scientific organizations. Contention II: "The Earth"s climate is always changing." This contention attempts to disprove the existence of man-made global climate change. There are a few problems with this point though. First, even if we were to concede that global climate change isn't man-made, that wouldn't change the existence of moral obligation on those able to do so if we take a utilitarian perspective i.e., global climate change could still pose a grave threat to humanity, thus provoking obligation to those who have the means to mitigate such effects. The second problem with this point is the fact that Pro has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims. He claims that "Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background." What an incredible claim, considering "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."[4] The point is further corroborated by further studies, all available in Source 1. Contention III: "There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities." Pro's third and final contention rests on his conception of nations as non-moral entities. He makes two sub-points in regards to this contention: (a) he argues that a nation exists separately from the people that make them up and (b) with his assuming of ethical relativism in a societal context. I contend that neither of these points hold weight and that Pro is mistaken in his existential characterization of nations. (a) Pro's first mistake in his point is that he conceives nations as something distinct and separate from their individual parts i.e., their citizens. But try to conceive of a nation without citizens. It wouldn't exist. Nations only exist because a group of people come together to organize society. (b) Pro's second mistake lies in his application of ethical relativism. Even if we admit that morals are relative to individuals, Pro's point still fails in that he proves too much. For instance, if morals can only apply to people and not collective entities (assuming such things even exist), then we also can't apply moral criticism to any other collective entities, including corporations, interest groups, or even family households. The only way to overcome this obstacle is to dissolve the existence of collective entities or more than the sum of their parts. We can't apply moral duties to a nation, but we can apply those criticisms to the individual people who make them up. ===Sources=== [1] http://www.euro-acad.eu...; [2] http://www.aaas.org...; [3] http://www.grida.no...; [4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

  • PRO

    Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". ... June 23, 2009:...

    Mars reveals more to scientists about climate change

    Buzz Aldrin. "Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". CNN. June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Mission_to_the_Moon_or_Mars%3F
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.06
      climate: 16.02
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.90 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.50)
      change: 11.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.50)
  • PRO

    Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of...

    The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

    Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of all i would like to define the word climate change.climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.it may be a change in average weather conditions or in the distribution of weather around avarege conditions.my main point on this issue is that climate change comes before the global economy so the world should focus on climate change.because if we do not focus on climate change it means that our land will be affected.e.g what if we have things such as global warming?that will be a case of one country but the world as whole will be affected.i would like to give you a very good axample by one country.let it be Zimbabwe.if there is global warming in Zimbabwe that means Zimbabwe can not produce the products it was manufacturing before because we manufacture products from raw materials.the country will have to depend on the other countries.that means there is no state income for that country.that is a process ,the economy that you were focusing on it start to decline.that will force you to go back and come with ways of ending global warming.because the economy of a country is sustained by the primary sector.how can you plant your seeds without the ground?and now where is people those are living in that country?is poverty not there?some firms will be closed up and people will be unemployed

  • PRO

    Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or...

    Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

    I would like to thank 16kadams for a wonderful first debate, here at DDO. I also must admit that my opponent has put forth very valid arguments, some of which I greatly agree with. I hope that in the future -- when I am a more developed debater -- I may challenge him again. As for my correlation of CO2 to warming, I must stand strong with it. I am aware that it was not the largest factor, but this correlation rate will continue to drop as the ppm of Carbon Dioxide rises, as it is an inverse equality. This is not me conceding the fact that there is a correlation, but that as our world becomes more laden with CO2, each molecule will have less and less of an effect. 1. Global Warming is real and is a threat I do not believe in Global Warming, as it means to show that the whole planet is warming (which I do not believe), but I understand the general use of the term now, even in ways to describe climate change. I believe that there is a vast change in our climate, and will continue to be as such. Perhaps now our data is biased on both sides, pro- or con-climate change. 2. Caused by humans I am well aware of the natural cycles of warming in Earth's geological history. Never before have we experienced such a sharp upward clime of Carbonppm without a natural calamity (such as eruptions, meteor collisions, etc.). To refute Con's claims on the 2,000-3,000ppm pf Carbon 60mya, I will use the same data as in my round 3. I used data from 66mya, 60mya, and 58mya, just to make sure I had all my bases covered, in case of his 60mya figure being an estimate. My attempted refute on your round2 source 7 was based on the grounds that our methods of measuring have become more efficient and accurate, so the data could be deemed inaccurate today (only a speculation). 3. Fixing the problem We are not ready to drop non-renewable fossil fuels. The profit is greater, and the amount of energy produced from these fuels far exceeds renewable energy. Hopefully, that can change. If not for a hopefully cleaner planet, then simply for the fact that we are going to run out one day. However, we will continue to grow in our ability to produce cheaper sustainable energy. In conclusion I have done the best in my ability to refute the claims Con has made and stabilize my views and hopes for the future. I hope to one day challenge another debater to a similar topic when I am more experienced.

  • PRO

    It must be noted that the graph my opponent uses does not...

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

    In R1 global warming was defined as an average increase in temperature since the late 19th century. We have caused pretty much all of the warming since 1976 and a significant percent of the pre-1940 warming, with a cooling spell between the late 40s to early 70s because of human aerosol emissions and a decline in TSI. King’s entire argument is… paleoclimate. But I don’t have to prove that we caused warming 500 million years ago, only since around 1870 or so. Paleoclimatology does have an application in this debate: whether or not CO2 causes (or doesn’t cause) past climate changes is important. It can prove whether or not CO2 has any influence on the climate. My opponent’s conclusion — that I have to prove changes before the industrial revolution — breaks rule 6, and warrants an automatic merit loss. I will refute the case anyway, but only the relevant details: A) Phanerozoic temperature record King shows us a graph plotting temperature and CO2 throughout the phanerozoic eon, and tells us that there is no correlation. For at least the last few thousand years, CO2 has had a strong impact on climate [1]. Unfortunately,King’s graph uses a study which I preempted. It must be noted that the graph my opponent uses does not show the error bars, so any correlation (or non correlation) is uncertain at best. And, as I argued last round, the man who made the graph (GEOCARB; Berner 2001) actually says that there exists a long term correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide [2]. Berner’s study also fails to take into account saturation effects. When this is accounted for, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is almost perfect [3]. So, the second graph my opponent uses is blatantly incorrect. Not only do the authors of the data say that I am correct, not only do the error bars tell us that the results are not really with my opponent, but a separate analysis *improving* the methodology finds a nearly *perfect* correlation between CO2 and temperature. B) More recent temperature changes The graph my opponent uses seems like a sketchy-tabloid esque graph. There is no reason to trust it. The data is not so cut and dry, especially because data exists showing that temperatures are warmer — not cooler — than temperatures within the past 1000 years [4]. And the timescale king uses is cherry picked. Using the past 65 million years, CO2 is the predominant climate forcing of temperature changes [5]. Research focusing on the past few interglacials — which includes king’s graph — has concluded that CO2 “plays . . . a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing.” [6] Plus, the graph king uses does not take into account other forcings. Of course other factors exist in climate — I am not arguing that CO2 is the only one, only that is can be (and is) a forcing since about 1870. Climate changes in response to whatever forcing exists at that date and time. And today, CO2 is driving climate. Just like how short term (volcanoes) and long-term (GCR fluctuations) can all affect climate, CO2 has *always* played *some* role in climate. On some timescales, it is dominant [3][4]. Merely because climate has changed for other reasons does not mean that humans have no effect. Most of the time, it is not a gun which kills a person, but it would be wrong to conclude that guns do not kill. Just because climate has changed before does not necessarily mean that our change is natural. C) Humans have only existed for 200,000 years So? 1. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 2. http://earth.geology.yale.edu... 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 4. http://www.meteo.psu.edu... 5. http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu... 6. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu...

  • PRO

    The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French...

    Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

    This is extremely confusing. You start off by saying that Maurice Strong is a criminal. He's not. Then you go on to rant about how climate change is an immoral commie agenda. I assume this is who you re talking about when you say he "created" climate change. He didn't. The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French physicist named Joseph Fourier in 1824. the first correlation beteen CO2 and temperature was discovered in 1900, by a Swede named Knut Angstrom. Mauna Loa began working in 1958. The first concern about climate change came in 1965, when the President was warned about climate change by a council of scientists. So tell me, how did Maurice start ALL of climate change? 2. This is a blog, and the IPCC is much more credible source. 3. (a) That's not how climate or averages work. They average thousands of sites across the globe, and they all indicate warming. (b) Oceans are indeed rising. YOu have no clue how continental drift works either, do you? COntinental drift doesn't happen at that rate, "dummy". Here's a source: https://www.climate.gov... 4. It is not trivial, but it is appeal to authority fallacy. 5. Please read the sources I've provided. They'll help. Hockey stick was not broken, and many replications have shown the same result. https://www.skepticalscience.com... there it is My opponent has repeatedly used incorrect information, fallacious reasoning, faulty logic, ad hominems, and has his whole argument structured around proof by repetition. Therefore, i strongly urge a vote to the pro(affirmative).

  • PRO

    6. ... Unless the geopolitics of global warming change...

    Humans already change climate; geoengineering not new

    Bryan Wassh. "6. Geoengineering". Time, What's Next in 2008: "the truth is, we're already performing an unauthorized experiment on our climate by adding billions of tons of man-made carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering%2C_solar_shading
    • score
      BM25 score: 26.78
      climate: 15.90
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.62 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 10.88
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)

CON

  • CON

    But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help...

    Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

    Hello, I thank you for going for this topic a go and giving an in-depth analysis of the topic given Before I go point by point, I will re-crystalize my case for better understanding. Let us go to the motion. By definition "Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change" now the key words here is "have to" which is morally obligated to help these undeveloped countries . Now why I oppose this motion is that why are developed countries obligated to help underdeveloped countries while they are both fighting the same climate change with the same causes. I agree that we have to change our economic world for better chances to fight climate change, but most countries can"t afford the technology as you and I said. But the reason why I said developed countries can"t help them is for the following reasons: (I won"t regurgitate my old points but I"ll brush on them briefly) As I said the foreign aid given to these undeveloped countries have been improving but it is not improving the country that is receiving it therefore the foreign aid will go to waste even if they go to the right places since people can properly manage the foreign aid on their own. Secondly, as I said more developed countries cannot support the underdeveloped countries in a bigger scale since they have bigger things to deal with, while the underdeveloped countries have smaller problems compared to developed countries. But if you consider the underdeveloped countries problems they are pretty huge in their perception like the poverty in the Philippines, it"s a small country but it"s a big problem over there so just like developed countries have big problems, underdeveloped countries have bigger problems since they are most probably poor while facing a problem like climate change that is a very expensive problem that is draining their economy. So these countries rely on foreign aid since they are already in a bad position in their economy and instead of money going to the fight of climate change it"s now going to different places instead. Therefore while developed countries can help them, they shouldn"t be obligated to the underdeveloped countries. It"s an obligation to the entire Earth to help preserve it. It is my responsibility, your responsibility and many others responsibility to help prevent it. That"s why I believe they shouldn"t be obligated to countries but to be obligated to the further future generations of humanity and to Mother Nature that helps humanity everyday. See you on the third round! (P.S. You have a great sense in the debate, I wish for greatness for you)

  • CON

    A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate...

    Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

    The issue you're running into here is simple, The Earth's climate is not a heat exchange model between humans and earth. It's a convection based heating and cooling cycle, Where the sun heats the landmass, And the landmass radiates heat back into the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperature is a result of the atmosphere trapping radiated heat from the landmass. The primary means of atmospheric capture are the trace greenhouse gasses, Which has been experimentally confirmed numerous times. A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate model, Which simulates the entirety of the system in the atmosphere, Which is the primary concern, Rather then that of the entire planet, Which is not a concern. Current modeling shows that the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere results in quite heavy heating of the troposphere, In particular polar regions, Which increases albedo. Humans live in the atmosphere, Which has an extremely small amount of mass compared to the planet, And has, Since the industrial era, Recieved a spike from 280ppm, To 407ppm. Those 32, 000 year cycles? They had a A good standard of this is an atmospheric and climate model, Which simulates the entirety of the system in the atmosphere, Which is the primary concern, Rather then that of the entire planet, Which is not a concern. Current modeling shows that the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere results in quite heavy heating of the troposphere, In particular polar regions, Which increases albedo. Humans live in the atmosphere, Which has an extremely small amount of mass compared to the planet, And has, Since the industrial era, Recieved a spike from 280ppm, To 407ppm. Those 32, 000 year cycles? They had a change of less then 120 ppm of CO2, And the change in solar irradiance is very slight. This can be found on the NASA website, If you want to chase sources. Milankovitch cycles and axis changes, Which you cite, Are currently in a recession, If they were to cause the changing climate, As you suggest, We would see a colder climate, Rather then a warmer one.

  • CON

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Largest states are responsible to lead on climate change.

  • CON

    Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    "Obligations"/"equality" distract from solving climate change

  • CON

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Developed states are doing everything they can on climate change

  • CON

    States should contribute equally to combating climate...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    States should contribute equally to combating climate change.

  • CON

    So why aim the gun at us only? ... If we want to save...

    Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change

    Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement " human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.

  • CON

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue. http://tinyurl.com... Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense. Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased. And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says. Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.98
      climate: 16.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 9.63
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    I stand by the points I raised in the first round and...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.95
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.60
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more...

    Climate change is real and caused by humans

    Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun"s rays heats the Earth"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It"s not our fault we breathe, it"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.89
      climate: 16.23
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 9.66
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 1.32 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)