Debate.orgThe sun drives the global climate
Man made climate change is a myth
The sun drives the global climate
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be...
Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions
Dear audience, please excuse my opponent for his outrageous conduct. During this round, if anyone has been manipulated by the fiendish approach my opponent has set, I will set them straight in this round. REBUTTALS "My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change." This, Mr. Adams, is why I am concerned on your motives of conduct, if you are willing to stoop to such a low in this debate. I will quote what YOU said in the opening round, in which I agreed to and accepted. "PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists). CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. " You have lost this debate, because you have admitted to C02 emissions factoring into global warming! You made a very poor mistake in doing this Mr. Adams. Next time, I advise you to pay closer attention to such things. ALL I have to do in this debate is to PROVE TO YOU THAT C02 EMISSIONS EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE! I have done this plenty of times, and can continue doing so as much as I please, because this is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN! "And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph." I must say, I laugh out loud when I read this. You must not have read your source very well, because it actually incriminates your point. And when you are called out on it, you say that it is FALSE! There, dear audience, you have heard it straight from my opponents own mouth. He is saying that the sources he has used in this debate are completely and utterly FALSE! Thus we cannot credit anything he has said in this ENTIRE debate, as apparently his sources all show mis-conducted information. This, however I already knew, and hopefully the audience did as well, given the vast amount of research and evidence I have shown you all strictly contradicting his evidence. "The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data." Let's keep in mind, that this is the graph from my OPPONENTS own source. That aside, this was cited within the source from the government site, that I listed above. My opponent is trying to dis-credit the carbon dioxide information analysis center of the information on c02 effecting the climate change. His basis for this is extremely unwarranted, and he provides absolutely no bearing of proof to back this claim up! He is basically filling his entire round with Fluff and nonsense, and I hope the audience understands this when reading the debate. "Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t." Except for it did! Your sources were wrong, you know they were wrong, and admit to them being wrong! So that must mean the information I provided proving that C02 emissions effecting global warming strongly in the past 10 years must be accurate. See all the graphs above. "And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures." Lol which one, pray, may I ask? Because I have shown 3-4 different graphs, statistics, and other outstanding information that proves that C02 DOES effect the climate. In fact you have too. Until you can dis-prove MY evidence with statistics, or graphs, mine holds the most priority at the moment. Next my opponent does some weird sketches on my graph. Again this is another attempt to manipulate the audience. He is saying that the graph DOESN'T show that C02 emissions effect the climate. If you look at the graph, you will see that as the C02 Emissions rise, so does the temperature. Especially within the last 20 years, that graph shows imminent temperature reports rising subsequently with the C02 emissions. "Every place I put a line is where correlation broke." Again, you are mis-understanding my goal in this debate. My goal is to prove that with the rise of C02 emissions, comes the rise of temperatures. Never once in the opening round did you say that I must prove that ONLY C02 emissions were a factor in global climate change. However, I HAVE proven that climate change does occur AS A RESULT of C02 emissions. That's it! That's all I needed to win this debate, as is CLEARLY defined by my opponent in R1! His continued pursuance of the opinion that C02 emissions do not effect the climate change very much, are blatantly going against his win condition for this debate. "My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point." Yes your source MAJORLY contradicts you and your goal in this debate. And your wrong, as it actually shows a major correlation between temperature rises and C02. " I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. " Listen. I DO NOT CARE. I never once said in this ENTIRE debate, nor did I have to, that C02 emissions were the only cause of global warming. I have proven that C02 emissions DO harm the environment. That much you CANNOT dis-agree with. Your conduct in this debate is superfluously appalling. Again, however, I would probably attribute that to your age. " My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate." Is that all you care about, is winning a debate based on a technicality? Despite the fact that I have PROVEN that C02 emissions are a huge factor in global temperature rising? Dear audience, my opponent attempts to ignore logic and valid information and is hoping to steal a win on the debate because of it, though he excused this in the beginning of his last round. The evidence is still there, it's still valid, and I do not care if you choose to ignore it. I will leave that up to the audience to decide. CONCLUSION My opponent has shown extremely poor conduct throughout this entire debate, and I hope the audience sees this as clearly as I have. My opponent attempts to ignore the light of all the evidence I have provided. He completely contradicts his own sources, which actually just help me out. I recommend the audience go through and read his source and find all the contradicting evidence he has to offer. My opponent says I have not upheld the burden of proof. If anyone buys this I strongly suggest they re-read that in which I have offered. I remain, that the evidence in R1 is still valid, and in R2, and none of it should be discounted on a technicality. I really hope for my opponents mental health, that he educates himself further on such subjects before starting debates on them. With that said, I strongly urge the voters to vote PRO. Thankyou.
-
PRO In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Thanks for the debate Idaho_Rebel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has stated that climate change has major environmental, social, political, and economic consequences. The issue at stake in this debate, whether developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the consequences of climate change, is thus quite necessary. Pro Case 1. What are the potential "effects" of climate change? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach 400ppm by 2017, if not earlier, making a rise in average global temperatures inevitable. It has been predicted that urban "heat island" effects (the result of rising temperatures) will result in the death of tens of thousands of people across the world. Other predictions include: high-intensity storms and flooding, causing property and infrastructure damage; droughts threatening food and water supplies; wildfires, desertification, and soil erosion destroying agricultural land, raising food prices, and leading to large-scale migrations; and rising sea levels, devastating low-lying coastal settlements (including many major cities). Source: IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de... 2. Why do "developed countries" have a moral obligation to mitigate these effects? The potential harms caused by climate change should be readily apparent, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there is some sort of obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless of which ethical precept is applied. For example, a utilitarian ethics (greatest good for the greatest number) is just as likely to recommend policies that mitigate the effects of climate change as a Kantian ethics (regarding the rightness of actions themselves). So then, the next question is: "who" carries the burden or moral obligation to curb the effects of climate change? The issue at stake here is one of responsibility: do particular governments have more responsibility than others? A reasonable principle to apply here would be the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle: the idea that everyone bears a responsibility to mitigate the effects of climate change, but those with the ability to pay have a greater burden to do so. We could apply other ethical principles, such as the idea of "intergenerational equity" (the debt to future generations) or "compensatory equity" (the debt to more socioeconomically vulnerable people). The conclusion of these principles suggests developed countries, who by definition are more advanced economically and technologically, have a greater burden to mitigate the effects of climate change than do currently developing countries. Con Case Re: "Contention 1" My opponent's argument, that the "economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries," is flawed for two reasons. First, my opponent completely neglects the possibility of alternative mitigation proposals, some which might even have a positive effect on the economy. For example, the development of drought-resistant crops, storm-resistant housing, climate-resilient infrastructure, and secure food/water supplies could easily produce new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there is no need to focus on CO2 emissions when other options exist. In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could build sea walls, which are not only cheaper but much more likely to protect than an energy tax. Second, my opponent's argument offers no reason to believe environmental legislation would hurt the economy. How would the EPA's national energy tax "kill jobs" and "stop economic growth"? How would it make "tilling a field" and "operating a feedlot" impossible? The only answer my opponent provides to these questions is "foreign competition." This fear is unfounded, however, because the EPA's regulations only apply to global industries (domestic industries would be unaffected since they all operate under the same restrictions). Moreover, since fossil fuels are already becoming more expensive relative to renewable sources, an energy tax would simply accelerate a transition to "green energy" that is already underway, including the retraining of carbon-intensive industries for "green jobs." The U.S. economy as a whole would remain competitive. Re: "Contention 2" The argument that humans are not responsible for climate change is irrelevant: assuming climate change is harmful to the well-being of humans, it would not matter who or what was responsible for the harm. The issue at stake in this debate is who is responsible for cleaning up the mess, not who is responsible for creating the mess. To clarify this point, consider Peter Singer's example of a child drowning in a shallow pond: do we have a moral obligation to rescue the child? Yes, we do. Now, suppose someone pushed the child into the shallow pond; does this fact suddenly absolve you of the moral obligation to rescue the child? No, it doesn't. The burden of mitigating the effects of climate change falls on humanity as a whole, with a greater burden placed on those who can better afford to pay for mitigation proposals. The issue of who is responsible for climate change is thus irrelevant. Re: "Contention 3" My opponent argues that "nations are not moral entities," so therefore the "idea that a country would have a 'moral obligation' is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism." The argument is not only entirely incoherent (how can something be objectively "unethical" on the basis of "Ethical Relativism"?), but its premises are flat-out wrong. The problem is that my opponent confuses descriptive ethics with normative ethics, taking the existence of different moral views (it is true that different individuals, cultures, and countries can have different moral doctrines) to establish the lack of a true morality that "nation-states ought to abide by." Just because a particular individual or nation believes their moral view is the right one does not make it right. A culture might practice slavery or cannibalism, but the fact they believe these practices ethical does not make itself make these practices ethical. If we employ an objective ethical framework, such as a utilitarian or deontological ethics which both make claims of universality and objectivity, then my opponent's argument is clearly misguided. But suppose we grant my opponent his claim of ethical relativism, that does not mean no ethical precept can be established. It simply means that, from our perspective, what is right is determined by what we believe. That does not mean what we believe is not a "standard ethical or moral policy." On the contrary, the whole point of ethical relativism is to establish that our morality is situated in our specific culture, and since our culture is one in which protecting the life and property of our citizens is of ethical importance, mitigating climate change is thus also important. The other point my opponent makes - that individuals, not nations, are moral entities - makes no sense. A country or government has the choice - rational free choice - to make decisions and affect the world, just like an individual. This simple fact makes a country a "moral entity," in the sense that my opponent uses the term. The distinction between individual and country does not hold up, because countries are simply the association of individuals for a specific purpose under a particular name. This allows countries to function in the same way as individuals, making them moral entities.
-
PRO The climate has not changed and if it did it wasn't...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
The climate has not changed and if it did it wasn't caused by human activity. The people who first started the climate change nonsense were all communist dictators and criminals.
-
PRO When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner...
Climate change
As I have previously stated it is important for the relevance and quality of the debate that only the argument presented are analyzed. Referring to "Co2 theorists" or "deniers" only muddles the debate and brings irrelevant arguments to the debate. I refrained from bringing into the discussion questionable arguments or false evidence produced by "deniers". Had this debate been:"I believe that CO2 advocates are right" or "Deniers are wrong" rather than "GW is human-induced in a significant way" than Con's reference to Co2 advocates statements would have made sense. I have already stated that I will not get dragged into a discussion about advocates and deniers. I am only interested in Con's arguments and he should only be interested in mine. I also salute the fact that Con engaged in tackling the methods for proving false the human induced GW. In my previous speech I pointed out that there was consensus among scientists and that it is more probable that the scientists saying GW is human induced are right. Con had 2 attacks: there is not a large consensus and the consensus is not meaningful. Con first tried to prove that consensus is not meaningful and than that there is actually no consensus. This means that Con abandons his first contention that consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now prove that Con's argument further strengthens my position. First of all, Con only managed to prove marginal misconduct in the IPCC and not in other independent studies while I managed to link all of Con's sources to financers that have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. When evaluating proof, one test is the vested interest in the outcome of the debate [1]. Con conceded in his second speech that GW scientists have no vested interest. Furthermore I have proven a clear and foul initiative form the part of oil industry to deny climate change. Con did not answer to the allegations and proof I provided with this respect. What is more, if there are some scientists that can speak out for themselves and deny the "official position" it is highly improbable that the others will be dominated by the "bureaucrats" at the IPCC. Con did not provide any evidence of the interference of the IPCC interference in the research of GW scientist. Con also attacked all of my sources in block, without mentioning what source is not credible. To Con the Wikipedia articles are more biased than oil financed or oil directed science. This is highly improbable. With respect to the consensus argument Con first conceded that consensus is meaningful and I have proven that it is more probable that the human induced GW theory is not affected by vested interests or by interfering from outside sources. Con decided to address the "significant" term of this topic. I must point out that it was not until the third round that Con addressed the "significant" definition. Until this round Con chose to replace my statements with those of "advocates". When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner by humans I have also provided the means to evaluate if this change is important. Con addressed some of them in the second round and attacked the idea of important enough to take action now. Con argument is nevertheless flawed as he proves that previous action was insufficient not that action must not be taken. Furthermore, Con decides to attack a specific course of action (cap and trade) when there are other means of combating Co2 emissions (i.e. taxes). While in this attempt EU failed to reduce emissions the basic idea should work as it has done in US when trying to curb So2 emissions. So if Con agrees to use this criterion too I should win this debate. We had previously agreed that there is global warming. Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented. In studying the past Co2 records Con pointed out that there can be no correlation between Co2 and global temperatures. I have shown that at the end of the period temperatures decreased and also Co2 levels decreased. The graph and phenomena presented by the article also point out a clear trend in the output and replacement of Co2. This imbalance of absorbed and emitted Co2 and also the positive feedback effect were never accounted for by Cons arguments. Even if at the scale of 600 million years there seems everything is ok, at the scale of 600 000 years Co2 has risen and h In the discussion about Venus and the Moon the basic idea was to observe simpler systems to determine the effects of Co2 in the absence of other factors that may complicate the analysis and hence the debate. I have provided evidence that shows that Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the Sun. Con only attacked the relevance of my source. In this case I will quote sources [2] [3]. Also, I have shown that the Moon which is at basically the same distance from the Sun as Earth is on average much colder. The Moon doesn't have any Periodic Oceanic movement to explain this characteristic. According to the principle tertium non datur the only thing left is the lack of greenhouse effect. Per a contrario on planets with atmosphere (i.e. Earth) this effect can be shown to be significant. We have both agreed to compare Venus to Earth. Nevertheless Con provided proof that states that we must not compare Earth and Venus due to major differences. According to common procedures what has been agreed in a case by the parties is considered truth for the purpose of that case. I must further point out that the evidence presented doesn't explain why we must not compare Venus and Earth. It simply points out that the pressure on Venus is greater than that on Earth but it further analyzes Co2 effects based upon the quantity. The document presented also says that we can only project Co2 evolution by not taking into account the projected evolution of population since this is not science but sociology. This elementary wrong as we must try to improve our models by using all the available data (humans produce co2 – this is no rocket science). The article also concedes that even using it's optimistic projections Co2 will increase temperatures by 1.85 C. When analyzing Venus, Con calculated a + 150 C greenhouse effect. I have shown that the calculation is wrong since Con used the presumption that there is no greenhouse effect on Earth to complete his calculations. The actual temperature that should have been used in the calculations should have been 255 K for Earth with no greenhouse effect. The graph presented is just that: a graph of a logarithmic function. It is for illustrative purposes only. It shows what math already that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x. The derivative shows the speed by which a continuous function "grows". 1/x has large values at the beginning and smaller as x increases. This means that the initial increases in Co2 have a larger effect than subsequent increases of Co2. Me, Con and the article agree on this point. However, neither Con's model, nor the one in the document explain the high temperatures on Venus. If for every 2 degrees we need to double the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere then for +150 C we would need a 2^75 increase (more than the amount on Venus) in Co2 to cause such an increase. This contradicts all the observed data of both Venus and Earth. It is more likely that the initial quantities of Co2 account for most of the effect and that most of the subsequent quantities cause smaller increases. Therefore most of the heating happens at the beginning. This heating is significant. I have used the same inverse method as the one used in the article presented by Con. It is both the Sun and Co2. The motion stands. [1] Preparing for legislative debate; Linda L. Oddo, Thomas B. McClain; P. 30 [2] http://hypertextbook.com... [3] http://www.universetoday.com...
-
PRO Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over...
Climate change is both real and a serious issue
My first source was just an example of the structure that should be used and is not part of my argument. You state that displacement will maintain the water levels. Water in its solid form is more dense than its liquid state. Therefore it takes up less space and by melting the ice caps the same amount of water would take up more room. Also there is a lot of the ice that is above sea level, the ice on top would melt and go into the ocean which increases the sea level. Get a graduated cylinder, fill it with water, and place a buoyant ball in. Measure the volume line of the cylinder, now push the ball entirely into the water and measure it again. You will notice that the volume line will increase. The same thing will happen with the ice melting into the ocean. You state that humans will raise the temperature by a couple of degrees. That has an incredible impact. In fact, that is what climate change believers are worried about. This couple of degrees will change the world and reduce the health of the biosphere.(http://www.motherjones.com...) The Industrial Revolution changed lives drastically, factories began to mass produce products, new tools allowed less farmers to create more food, and wealth inequality grew. This resulted in accelerated population growth and living condition improvements. A side effect was the demand for energy to power factories, trains, planes, ships, and to create electricity. Whether it was wood, coal, or oil, these energy sources when burned would release emissions that have been buried in the ground for millions of years. Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over 200 years we have increased the carbon footprint of the planet by 38%(1). This is increasing the global temperature which is resulting in: melting of the polar caps, ecosystem destruction, and is destroying our biosphere. Due to the excessive use of these energy sources we are also destroying the environment. Dumping trash and waste into the ocean and rivers of the world. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a dangerous cycle. Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and causes higher temperatures. Polar ice caps reflect huge amounts of sunlight, and because of the increased temperatures these caps are slowly melting away causing even more heat to stay in the Earth. Beneath the polar caps is home to millions of pounds of carbon dioxide that will be released furthering this cycle. This process is exponential and is almost impossible to restore back to its original state with current technology. With the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising, trillions of dollars in economies would be at jeopardy. Cities like New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, would be destroyed. These changes would also displace billions of people in the process(2). Life is very fragile for multi-celled organisms, a change in the organism's niche will wipe them out. This is because they are well adapted to the environment which makes them very dependent on it. Deserts are expanding, ocean reefs are disappearing, and forests are vanishing(3). These ecosystems are home to millions of different species and the rate of extinction is rising at an alarming rate(4). Food webs and season cycles are being disrupted which are incredibly important to the system. Temperature increases are affecting sea level and ocean temperature. This in turn is wrecking the ocean currents that deliver heat evenly and quickly all over the world as well as sustain billions of ocean organisms. Couldn't it be argued that those people against climate change are trying to further themselves. Oil and coal businesses would lose immense profits or go bankrupt if governments started to crack down heavily on the issue. Many government and educational sites are posting verifiable data on climate change.(1)http://climate.nasa.gov...(2)http://www.nationalgeographic.com...(3)https://www.epa.gov...(4)http://www.pbs.org... You have claimed that there was higher C02 concentrations during the Ordovician period and that flora and fauna was incredible. What soon followed suit was the largest mass extinction ever. The climate changed rapidly and the organisms that were best fit died off. This is why climate change is such a big deal. Yes, carbon emissions were much higher, however the suns solar output was incredibly low along with much larger ice caps to deflect more sunlight. In comparison, today we have a very high solar output and much smaller polar caps. Recent studies on the Ordovician period actually show that the carbon concentration was not as incredible as claimed (5). You brought in that people used to believe the world was flat. That is a common myth(6). The Earth is an oval and there are immense amounts of evidence to prove it. Yet people today still believe the Earth is flat(7). (5) https://skepticalscience.com... (6)https://en.wikipedia.org...# (7)https://theflatearthsociety.org...
-
PRO This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world....
Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.
To consider this resolution and evaluate both possible solutions a few things must be established. Firstly, the main value that both sides are defending is the value of human life. The common goal is saving the most possible humans. The pro side will be arguing that preparation is fundamental and necessary to achieve this while the con should be arguing that reducing the damage to the environment is enough. Before I lay out my arguments I would like to make one clarification: the pro side is not arguing that prevention is the ultimate solution. Instead, we will prove that it should be the immediate and necessary action. These are our reasons: 1. We will suffer the consequences of climate change. (It will rise above 2 C). The vast majority of scientists agree that a rise in the average temperature of the world above 2 degrees Celsius from before industrial levels will be extremely catastrophic to the human population. This is a very alarming fact because we have already risen 1 degree above these industrial levels, and from the current course we have set our industries on, it is virtually impossible to prevent going above 2 C. This means we WILL deal with the catastrophic damage of climate change! Now the question is what is the best solution to deal with these consequences such as extreme droughts, flooding, harsh storms, etc.? The solution proposed by the the opposition is completely inviable since switching to green energy or any other measure will not save the lives of the people whose house was washed away by floods or who do not have water to drink. I"m from Brazil and recently we have had the worst drought in 50 years. This made a many people realize the importance of the environment and start taking actions to help it, yet that did not solve the immediate problem. People still did not have water to live! Preparation was necessary and would have remediated the issue. This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world. We need to be prepared to face what is coming, and that is why it should be our main goal. 2. Not all nations will agree on preventing climate change; therefore, nations that do not prepare for its effects will be harmed. One example of this is China, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which has recently stated that it would not maintain its emission control pledges. As a result of that, it is inevitable that significant damage will occur due to climate change. It is nearly impossible to force countries like this to comply with climate change prevention measures; therefore, it would be more beneficial for the other nations to prepare themselves to the effects of climate change rather than spending trillions on trying to prevent it in vain. How can you ask a small country like the Maldives to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions when the sea is rising and destroying their cities? Even if they did agree to take these measures, because other countries like China don"t, the seas will continue to rise. Their main concern currently should be to prepare with the effects of this rise. 3. It would be illogical for a few countries to make the change to green technology because of the magnitude of capital investment in the oil & gas industry. The oil & gas industry is a billion dollar industry. Only in the time period 2009-13 more than 3000 billion dollars were invested in the oil & gas industry. It is needless to point out the huge negative effects the adoption of green technology would mean for the world economy. The results would be catastrophic and there would be no turning back. Thousands of people would lose their jobs and years of technological developments in the industry would be wasted. It would cost 44 trillion dollars to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. The cost of this is unviable. There are no investors willing to spend that much money on green technology. Logically, the costs would be split. However, given the profits the oil industry brings only a crazy person would spend on green technology. This once again demonstrates how prevention is completely impossible in our world and preparation is the best immediate solution. 4. If climate change prevention does not work, then mankind would have wasted all of its resources into something futile, and we would not be able to survive the effects of climate change. In order to change the ways of mankind now, we would have to change so many habits that have been ingrained in our society for decades, since the discovery of oil. How we run our factories, how we trade, change all of the packaging on foods, beauty products, even clothing. It is impossible to impede the productions of these items, since nowadays fossil fuels are present all around us. The keyboard you are typing on is made of plastic for example, the case around your phone is plastic as well. It is incoherent to assume that we can slow this process now, so instead of spending trillions on prevention methods that we are not certain can work (they haven"t until now), we must start thinking about the future, and preparing for the worst that can come. One of the largest mistakes that humanity makes is to begin something and not look deep enough into the future to know how to control that something. This is not a fatalistic view, it is a cautious one. For all these reasons, we are arguing that the preparation to deal with climate change should currently be valued above preventing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arguing that suddenly changing the path we are on will happen and is viable is thinking of a utopian world. It is a completely inviable solution. The main goal of nations should be to prepare, and later, when the mentality concerning climate change starts to shift, prevention can be discussed.
-
PRO Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Thanks for accepting this debate I hope we have a great debate! Evidence is only to be presented when asked for Last speeches, no new evidence is to be presented 1st speech- opening 2nd- rebuttals 3rd- more rebuttals 4th- summary 5th- Closing statement Good luck! PRO- Case Definitions First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies. Standard- The standard of today"s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate. 1. Alternative- Adaptation Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today"s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to "adapt" to the effects of climate change. According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate. 2. Economy If developed countries mitigate the effects of climate change, the economy will grow. According to the UN, Renewable energy generates more jobs than fossil fuels. Worldwide, jobs in renewable energy industries exceeded 35 million in 2010. $211 billion were invested in the renewable industries in 2010. Obviously, the renewable energy industries create a bigger impact than fossil fuels, and are capable to generate more jobs in the future than fossil fuel industries will be able to. A study done by the Natural Resource Defense Council said that if present trends continue, these four global warming impacts alone will come with a price tag of almost 1.9 trillion annually (in today"s dollars), by 2100. The Impact is that Mitigating the effects of climate change is important because of how much it is costing the world. With more jobs being created, the economy is being reboosted. Obviously countries have a moral obligation if climate change is costing them money. 3. Moral Obligation Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country"s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian). Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism: It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted "Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security. Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives. The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. 4. The Environment Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5"C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. The Impact is that if the Earth"s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late.
-
PRO 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm...
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Before I begin, I would like to bring up a prior statement you made from Round One: "Correlation is always an argument in this debate...It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it." (See Round one for full quote.) . I would like to point out that this is true, but the Regression Factor of CO2 would of course not be as effectual as the Irradiance of the Sun, as that is where all energy on our planet originates. The r=.44 of Carbon is not as large as the PDO and AMO (Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation), but .44 still means that there is a strong enough correlation, that it may affect our mean temperature. Of course, the .83 r factor of our currents is more effectual, since a large amount of our world’s heat is stored in our oceans as shown in the following chart: [2] Notice that there are more high temperature areas in the oceans (mostly since the ocean is 75% of the Earth's surface area), and that they go farther North and South than the land masses do. This was meant to be included in my last round, I'm sorry for including it now. 1. Climate Change is real and is a threat There definitely have been natural warmings of our planet, but never as fast as these last 162 years in which we have kept records of our planet's weather. In the last 7 years alone, Carbon counts globally have risen 18ppm according to various studies. [1, 3] In regards to the end of a noticeable rise in temperature being 1995, I still wholly agree. However: it is well known that just because one thing happens, the effects of it are not immediately felt. Just as how we are only now seeing light from stars that shone that light millions of years ago. The ocean's currents will not change immediately, but slowly over a few years, as will sea level. Though sea levels aren't rising worldwide, they are growing by an average rate of 3.11mm per year, an increase in the average (documented prior to 2000) of 1.63mm more per year. [4] "However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years," is a quote from my Round Two which you referenced in your rebuttal: "Regardless...the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]." (See Round two for full quote) I would like to point out that I never said there were more hurricanes, only that these storms were stronger than before. Again, I will cite this: [5] As for your claim that hurricane intensity has flat lined, realize that your source only documents hurricanes post-landfall. Landfall is when the eye of the hurricane is only on land, and hurricanes begin to lose force as the storm's boundaries cross the shore line, so most hurricanes are documented at a weaker strength after they have already done the majority of the damage they can. [6] Allow me to define climate: noun. 1. The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. The prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest. [7] According to this, the dust bowl was an effect of climate change, and my opponent even says that it was caused by humans through over-farming. 2. Humans are the cause of climate change First thing I would like to say in this section is that your source 7 is out of date, as many more have been released since then that contradict what is put forth here. [3, 8] As for Carbon ppm being 3000ppm 60mya, I must cry false, as 3000ppm is only a few thousand ppm lower than during the Cambrian era, in which the mean temperature was 7 degrees centigrade higher than today. 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm during the last years of Cretaceous era, and 500ppm only 6 million years later in the Paleocene era. [9-11] In accordance to your claim that glaciers are growing, I will argue that, saying that they grow in height, but not enough to compensate for the amount lost -- or not even gained in the first place -- each year. I can agree that these ice masses slowed their ice loss, but they resumed to lose more after your source 8 and 9 were published. [12, 13] 3. Fixing the problem Renewable energy sources are continuing to become more efficient. Remember: it took us, as Hominids, 400,000 to achieve the level of efficiency we have today in combustion. [14, 15] To dismiss our strides in renewable energy so quickly is rash and immature as a species. Sure, wind turbines are dangerous to avian life. Hydro plants are obtrusive and change the local climate due to human interference. [16] Solar cells are expensive and large, and the output is not always sufficient. However! These innovations are from the last century, and in the next decade, we will have technologies that will far surpass what we have today as a renewable source. Even now, the photovoltaics which Con so easily dismissed are being produced and developed more than any renewable source (nuclear excluded, not renewable) with 1/100th the cost and 50% more efficiency. These are simply trial versions as well. [17] Wind kites can harness energy for the average home with no human maintenance and a 30-50-killowatt/hour range, with even more effective versions in development. [18] Biomass fuels are becoming more common [19] and soon may be one of the must substantial sources of fuel. Nuclear energy is the best we have (for now) in lieu of a completely clean renewable energy. If these energies were more substantial in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, etc., the crisis we may be facing in the next decade can be stopped before it even starts. New Section: 4. The animal effect Concentrated atmospheric pollution kills millions of animals and gives humans living there life-threatening complications. [20] As these animals die from new diseases, pollution, and habitat loss (also climate change), we face a grim future. The complex chain of animals in our environment is so precarious, that one extinction or introduction could topple a whole ecosystem, throwing that climate in to turmoil, domino-ing the whole planet. In Conclusion! I believe that this round gives a broader view of the problem than Con is willing to propose, but cannot be neglected. VOTE PRO [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] http://www.physicalgeography.net... [3] http://climate.nasa.gov... [4] http://climate.nasa.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] NationalHurricaneCenter (2009). Glossary of NHC Terms: Landfall. Retrieved on 2009-02-05. [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] http://climate.nasa.gov... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://climate.nasa.gov... [13] http://climate.nasa.gov... [14] Price, David. "Energy and Human Evolution". Retrieved 2012 December 10. [15] James, Steven R. (February 1989). "Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence". [16] http://en.wikipedia.org... [17] Streep, Abe. "The Brilliant Ten: Greg Nielson." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 47. Print. [18] North, Dave. "Blueprint: Higher Power." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 18. Print. [19] http://www.tgdaily.com... [20] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. *for sources 9-11, use chart in upper-right hand corner
-
PRO He found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees C, with upper...
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin
C1) Climate sensitivity is likely high Climate sensitivity is the key argument to this debate. Everyone agrees that CO2 has some direct effect, at least 1 degree C per doubling of CO2 concentration. This is what former climate modeler turned skeptic David Evans argues. “[All] serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.” [1] What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are important because they tell us how much warming we will have in the future. They amplify -- or dampen -- the warming effect of CO2. Changes in albedo, cloud cover, water vapor, and greenage can all affect warming. If sensitivity is 2-3 degrees C, CO2 can explain most of the warming since the late 70s. If it is lower it still causes a significant amount. My opponent needs to pretty much argue that the amplification effects are under one in order to win. Let us assume that climate sensitivity is low. Say, feedbacks are around zero (no positive or negative feedbacks); every doubling of CO2 leads to roughly 1.1 degrees C increase in temperature. Even this unrealistically low climate sensitivity does not harm the AGW hypothesis. Nir Al Shaviv, a skeptical physicist, wrote a paper assuming the feedback effect was 1.1 degrees. He calculated that CO2 actually caused slightly over half of the modern warming trend [2] (about 57%). The famous Lindzen and Choi (and Spencer) results are really the only ones which cast doubt on the fact that CO2 is responsible for the warming. But Nir Al Shaviv told me in an email, “[m]y best estimate is that the sensitivity is higher than Lindzen and Choi, actually closed to no net amplifier, with the 50% of the CO2 doubling, the Anthropogenic contribution is also around 50%.” [3] Essentially, he verified what I sent to him in an email with calculations I had done assuming the amplifier was flat. My data found that it caused about 49.5% of the warming, but I failed to take into account the logarithmic effect of CO2, which makes the effect over 50%. Even then, these assumptions are incorrect. Sensitivity is higher, and if it is, CO2 pretty much causes far more than 50% of the warming, but both estimates are enough to win me the debate. Research by Patrick Michaels, now a libertarian, CATO scholar found the amplifier to be 1.6 degrees C [4]. More than the 1.1 above. This puts the man made contribution to global warming above 50%, and certainly above 57%. This is not even including other gases which amplify the greenhouse effect. The burgeoning evidence suggests that the net amplifier is around 2-3 degrees C. Based on multiple lines of evidence, stemming from volcanic eruptions, instrumental records, paleoclimatology, and more, the mean sensitivity sits firmly at about 3 degrees C. The following picture demonstrates the evidence. As seen, the average never dips below 2 degrees C. The mean is 2 - 4.5 degrees C, all of which are enough for me to win the debate. 2 degrees C probably puts you around 70% of the warming is due to CO2, and 3 at nearly 100%, though I have not done the math (yet…). Some studies find fairly high sensitivity, around 4 degrees C. JD Annan, a leading climatologist, uses a Bayesian statistical technique, the predominant methodology in both the skeptic and realist literature. He found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees C, with upper estimates at 4 degrees C, though still possible, but very unlikely below 3 degrees C [5]. The following graph [6], which I like because since I have used it pretty much everyone else has stolen it, shows the results from 3 leading studies. Although the results are uncertain, they are certain in that sensitivity is above 2 degrees C. A new paper, published in 2012, actually went against the consensus and found low sensitivity. Despite this, their results concluded that “[h]umanity is . . . responsible for the most recent period of warming from 1976 to 2010.” [7] Sensitivity is high. That means I win the debate. If it is low, I still win the debate because it caused 50% of more of the modern warm period. C2) Evidence from paleoclimatology I love paleoclimatology. I like geology and come from a family of geologists who are also oil entrepenueres (maybe why I still have skeptic leanings). And pretty solid evidence in the paleoclimatological record actually shows a strong CO2 effect. I am just going to c/p my debate with Roy. There is significant evidence from paleoclimate records that CO2 can have an effect on changes in the climate. Climate skeptic and paleoclimatologist Bob Carter emphasizes the importance of paleoclimate data. He compares climate to a piece of string. The current instrumental data (1850 – present) is a very short period of time, according to Carter. And when the ‘string’ is lengthened, we see a lot of climactic variability. Instead of looking at the recent past, we should look at the entire temperature record in order to get an accurate picture of the climate [8]. I will provide evidenc, contrary to what Carter believes, lengthening the string supports AGW theory. Over the Cenozoic Era, which began 66 million years ago, we see clear warming and cooling cycles caused by changes in CO2 concentrations. The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. Plate tectonics was also accounted for. With natural forcings an unlikely cause, “CO2 was the dominant climate forcing in the Cenozoic” [9]. When you lengthen the ‘string’ over the course of the entire Phanerozoic (500 million years; begins at the Cambrian) there is still evidence of CO2 driving multiple climate changes. The GEOCARB study, published in 2001, is one of the definitive proxy records for CO2 concentrations within the last 500 million years. The study notes that “over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature” [10]. Evidence from the Vostok ice cores (specifically 240,000 before present), proves that CO2 has had an effect on temperatures. Although the initial forcing was orbital changes in the sun, CO2 “plays . . . a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing” and “the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation”. The study also notes that these forcings “are also at work for the present-day and future climate” [11]. There is also proof that it is warmer now than it has been since the MWP. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400 AD [12]. Newer reconstructions continue to support this finding, and even extends the dataset. It finds that the Roman warm period (RWP) and the MWP as much cooler than today, and claims to have replicated previous ‘hockey stick’ studies [19]. The results are depicted below. Looking into the geologic past, we see strong evidence in favor of the idea that carbon dioxide can increase temperature. It logically follows that if humans continue to emit CO2, and other greenhouse gasses, that human emissions will increase temperatures. C3) Consensus Before I continue, I would like to note this argument in and of itself does not prove that global warming is caused by man. Actual evidence should be the driving force behind this debate. The reason I chose to put this in my argument is simple: the science is not clear because of consensus, but a consensus exists because the evidence is clear. This evidence will be discussed later. A study published in Science reviewed the ISI web of science in order to take a survey of relevant climate literature as to what the causes of climate change are. The study failed to find a single paper which was in opposition to the consensus position, that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic. 75% of the papers supported the consensus position, whereas 25% had no position (they were focused on things other than forgings, like impacts or paleoclimate) [14]. The study also noted how many organizations have come out supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have all concluded that the evidence for AGW is overwhelming [15]. NASA furthers this argument, noting “most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position”. They also argue “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities” [16]. A 196 page report representing 13 governmental agencies, and written by 28 authors from scientific institutions, has stated “[t]he global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases” [17]. 1. https://mises.org... 2. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il... 3. Personal Correspondence. 4. http://www.int-res.com... 5. http://www.jamstec.go.jp... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.scirp.org... 8. Bob Carter. Climate: The Counter Consensus (London: Stacey International, 2011). 9. http://www.columbia.edu... 10. http://earth.geology.yale.edu... 11. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu... 12. http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca... 13. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 14. http://www.sciencemag.org... 15. Ibid. 16. http://climate.nasa.gov... 17. http://downloads.globalchange.gov...
CON
-
CON Most third world countries like Somalia, Maldives,...
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.
Hello, I'm glad to meet you. I hope this debate goes well. I represent those who are against this motion. First, why should developed countries NOT have the obligation to help these under-developed countries in the first place? The world itself is fighting climate change and every country has contributed to climate change at one point or another and it's every country's obligation to help prevent since it is affecting everyone. Most third world countries like Somalia, Maldives, Bangladesh, etc. fought tooth and nail with the help of other countries and the UN and there is not a lot of progress and they end up depending on other countries. Second, why do undeveloped countries need or depend on the help of developed countries and the UN? It is because of their economic vulnerability. Climate change will hit underdeveloped countries the most because of their economic vulnerability. And this is what makes these countries dependant on foreign aid since they can't afford it themselves which leads to lack of funding on better alternatives and better technology. Third, why can't developed countries help these under-developed countries when they themselves are in a better position? It is because more developed have bigger problems to deal with. Take a look at the US, they are considerably developed and have far more better technology to help their It is because of their economic vulnerability. Climate change will hit underdeveloped countries the most because of their economic vulnerability. And this is what makes these countries dependant on foreign aid since they can't afford it themselves which leads to lack of funding on better alternatives and better technology. Third, why can't developed countries help these under-developed countries when they themselves are in a better position? It is because more developed have bigger problems to deal with. Take a look at the US, they are considerably developed and have far more better technology to help their climate change crisis. Then why don't help on a bigger scale? It's like what I said, the more developed you are, the more likely your problems are bigger. This is what I currently have on my mind as I write this. I hope you can debate with me. Cheers.
-
CON For the purpose of this debate I propose the following...
Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosphers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigting the effects of climate change is neccessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that "The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; "Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; "The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries.
-
CON Opening Statement: First I would like to refer to to the...
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change
Kind regards for this debate. I will be representing the Con side, meaning that I will be debating that Factory Farming is not the number 1 cause of man made climate change. First I would like to define 'factory farming', being defined as "a system of rearing livestock using highly intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions." 'Man made' implies that "made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)." This means that the burning of fossil fuels, while it could occur naturally, occurs 'man made' as the method by which fossil fuels are creating climate change and are by all means man made, as to say that a majority of emissions would not occur, was it not for the human action of burning fossil fuels, thus implying a man made action and resulting in man made climate change. Opening Statement: First I would like to refer to to the World Resources Institute's data (http://www.wri.org...) showing that the US is one of the highest contributors to emissions. That being said, I will provide the following graph easily showing the little impact farming, not to mention this includes all practices of farming, not just 'factory farming', has on the overall emissions. This graph is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www3.epa.gov...) Easy to see, Agriculture has a minimal input of 9% on Greenhouse Gas emissions. Furthermore it is to mention, that according to the source used above, methane, the gas produced by animals, may make up an estimated 30% of emmissions in the Agricultural sector, however, thus only around 3% overall. And this is not even factory farming, just animals in total. Conclusion: As provided by statistics above, Agriculture itself is not even a major contribution to Greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that factory farming, which is an even smaller contributor, is not the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to your arguments.
-
CON China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal obligations
-
CON Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.
-
CON Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
-
CON First world countries do not have the moral obligation to...
First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
First world countries do not have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
-
CON Taking action against climate change includes economic...
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
Taking action against climate change includes economic regulation.
-
CON Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries:...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."-Thomas B. Reed Definitions: "Developed countries: sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other less developed nations "Moral obligation: an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong "Mitigate: to lessen in force or intensity, as wrath, grief, harshness, or pain; moderate "Effects: a change that is the result or consequence of an action or other cause "Climate change: is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. Contention 1: The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries. New regulations planned by the EPA could have detrimental effects to our economy " particularly causing a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods. The heart of the EPA"s regulation would be a backdoor national energy tax that will ultimately kill jobs, stop economic growth and raise the cost of energy, food and transportation. They would also double the current regulatory standard on farm dust that would make tilling a field, operating a feedlot or diving farm vehicles impossible - bringing the agriculture sector to a standstill. A representative from the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation said, "Farmers and their way of life and livelihood have never felt more challenged or threatened than they do today by the continuous onslaught of regulations and requirements from the Environmental Protection Agency... The cost they represent will impact the economy as a whole, and this committee should not be surprised when our economy contracts and jobs are lost to foreign competition." An MIT study conducted by Stephen M. Meyers clearly shows that increased environmental regulation burdens the economy, especially in times of economic downfall. So why then, would we want any more ridiculous red tape? An increase in environmental regulation would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars, nobody wants to see that. Contention 2: The Earth"s climate is always changing. If you talk to any credible climatologist, they will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now. Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background. The climate is always in a state of constant change and development. The Earth goes through natural periods of cooling and warming, that"s scientific fact. Would you blame the warming of the Earth after the last Ice Age on humans or man-made greenhouse gases? As with all the climate change nonsense, not a single claim can be substantiated as actual physical proof. Only assumptions and predictions made with manipulated computer models and deliberately corrupted data exist. Actual meteorological records and geophysical records destroy any credibility of everything ever said by these environmental groups. The real agenda of "global warming" has nothing to do with climate or weather but all to do with politics and the financial gain of those who stand to benefit from green investments. What better an investment could they have than one where the government forces the use of a green scheme idea or product on the public? In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man"made causes. Contention 3: There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities. On what grounds are so-called "developed countries" morally obligated to do anything? The simple fact is that there is no basis for this claim. Individuals, rather than government, determine morals. Government is not, and never has been where you should look for morals; you have that in your own heart and conscience; you teach that to your family. You cannot dictate what morals your neighbor has nor what morals your neighbor teaches his children. Make yourself an example with morals; that is all one can do. And certainly government has no place in that. The whole idea that a country would have a "moral obligation" is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism, that ethics and morals are relative to each Nation or even culture and that there is no standard ethical or moral policy that all nation-states ought to abide by.
-
CON Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole...
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
My opponent has argued that the moderate to poor correlation of CO2 is enough to be considered major, however this is illogical. First, I never said CO2 had no effect, I argued it was not the main cause. Second, it is unlikely increasing CO2 has a large impact because CO2 increases are logarithmic, in other words the more CO2 there is the less warming effect each unit has. If we double the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (we have gone through 30-50% increase) then warming per I increase would be extremely small. A 20 ppm increase of CO2 would be much less then 0.2 degrees Celsius [1]. Second, the climate is not very sensitive; a better way to put it would be an increase in CO2 would have little effect. The evidence claiming climate to be sensitive are very flawed, they ignore climate feedbacks and other factors relating to sensitivity. If CO2 were to double, only a 1 degree increase would occur, we have not doubled CO2 levels from the pre-industrial era and have warmed less then one degree Celsius. With current emissions it is unlikely we could argue CO2 is the main driver of climate change, when sensitivity is taken into account [2]. Second, my opponents rebuttal to the PDO and AMO argues the correlation is due to the seas space, however he ignores the fact the PDO and AMO go into cooling cycles and the correlation I cited showed when they cooled, the earth cooled, and in a warming phase the land warmed. Dr. Roy Spencer has argued the PDO may cause three quarters of the current warming due to its effects on clouds (therefore our albedo) winds, and obviously tropical winds. And it heats the pacific, obviously warming the earth in that way too. Spencer has argued, "mankind"s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we"ve seen over the last 100 years." And that "Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific, it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority of global warming has occurred).[emphasis added]"[3] For my opponents argument to work, he would need to prove the PDO and other currents would only affect the regional areas (as he argued with his map). However, the cloud cover changes caused by the PDO would change the earths albedo and cause warming for the entire northern hemisphere, and as he noted that"s where the warming is primarily occurring. 1. Global warming is real and is a threat My opponent has argued this warming is unusually fast, which is interesting, as I have argued above that warming has stopped in recent years. With the stop of warming in recent years, it is odd to argue it is rising unusually fast. Models have overestimated the effect of CO2, claiming over the last 15-20 years the warming should have increased"a lot"however the warming has stopped [4]. The earth has actually been significantly warmer throughout its time period, when comparing us to other time periods in geologic history we are in an ice age. According to the 1995 IPCC report, our warming as been extremely insignificant and fairly normal. Climate geologists, generally, oppose climate alarmism. Many of the most well known geologists have argued the current warming is "right on schedule". Nothing about our warming is odd, different, or one of a kind [5]. The sea level raises my opponent points too are exaggerated. There is vast evidence that sea level rise is meager to nonexistent. A 2003 study finds sea level rise has only been about .5 mm a year, half of what my opponent has argued. A 2004 study finds before 1940, sea level rise was about 1mm per year"my opponent"s number"but finds there has been no sea level increase (overall) after that date. Another 2004 study found, when you averaged the whole 20th century, we get 1.8mm rise per year, but when you break it into chunks (1950-2000) no sea level rose in that time period. And yet another 2004 study finds that the sea level increase is overall uncertain. They note in their study they believe sea level has risen 2 mm per year, however they failed to control for regional variability. They said their study answers many questions and creates many more, and conclude one cannot conclude anything. A 2005 study finds no increase in sea levels since 1950. And the list continues, the evidence that sea level rise is meager is growing [6]. My opponent has admitted no increase of hurricanes was argued. In other words, even if intensity increases but the number falls, we are left with a wash. However, even the intensity argument fails. Pro argues my data is incomplete"focusing on landfall hurricanes"although that"s what really matters (or at least matters more) then sea hurricanes, his argument still falls when I extend the data set. So let me again note: the number of hurricanes overall has fallen, and my opponent overall drops that point. Many studies project a 5% increase in hurricane intensity, however a 2005 study (although concluding higher intensity) says that number is twice as high as it should be. Other studies have found intensity to be the same or actually decrease. The 2005 study agreeing with my opponent, in a way, argues reducing CO2 emissions (which would occur by using green energy as the resolution states) would not change Hurricane intensity. A 2006 study finds there is no correlation between global warming and wind speeds in Hurricanes. A second 2006 study replicates the results, arguing there is no current correlation between Hurricane intensity and warming. Multiple 2007 and 2008 studies replicate these findings, arguing "if there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to a greenhouse gas induced global warming, it is currently obscured" (Chylek, P. and Lesins 2008) and that "no evidence that the distributional mean of individual storm intensity, measured by storm days, track length, or individual storm power dissipation index, has changed (increased or decreased) through time." (Briggs 2008) [7]. The evidence is pretty compelling: no Hurricane intensity changes have occurred. Remember: this is using non-landfall data too (making my opponents objection refuted). And there is some evidence that global warming reduces the total number of hurricanes meaning an overall decrease of extreme weather occurs. My opponent plays semantics. In this debate climate change, as implied in round one, is global warming. The dust bowl, as I argued, was caused by farming and not a warming earth. Therefore, his objection is irrelevant. A drought in the 16th century has been deemed a mega drought by a 2000 study. It was the largest drought in human history, before humans could have caused it. Droughts within the last 1000 years are much more severe then now, and a 1998 study noted there was a decrease of droughts in the 20th century. Warming has no correlation with droughts, however overall sun intensity (which, sometimes, means warming may correlate with droughts) and regional warming from the suns rays caused droughts, not human processes [8]. Hunnington (2006) has pointed out rainfall globally has been increasing. Many studies have concluded rainfall will increase because of global warming; plant growth will increase, decreasing the possibility of a drought [9]. 2. Caused by humans My opponent uses flawed data, my data was 60 million years ago, and my opponent has used data from the creations, 5-6 million years before. As CO2 naturally fluctuates with climate change"climate change often causes more CO2"it would not be unheard of for the ppm levels to be close too, or far from, other dates. My opponent also falsely correlated CO2 with temperature; by arguing it cannot be that close, the Cambrian was warmer. As stated, the historical correlation between CO2 and temperature is nonexistent, with CO2 lagging temperature or not correlating at all. The CO2 was 2000-3000 ppm 60 mya, by measuring oxygen isotopes. This data is impeccable, and my opponents Cambrian objection makes little sense, its not odd that CO2 was not much lower at this time period, as CO2 and temperature historically don"t correlate well his Cambrian objection is a weak one [10]. My opponent really doesn"t refute my lagging argument, only posts links. Those links only talk about modern temperature trends, meaning source seven stands. And when looking at data millions of years ago, it won"t matter if the study was published in 1999 or 2012. But if date is what he wants, recent papers back my findings too [11]. 3. Fixing the problem The resolution is in present tense, so saying "it will get better later" is against the wording of the resolution. However, lets refute the "future" argument. It is impossible to replace fossil fuels with green energy, New York would need 60 square miles of wind turbines and the wind to be blowing 100% of the time to power the city. Wind power has always been more expensive then fossil fuels, and new research has still failed to fix that problem. Bio fuels and other sources are quite inefficient and waste other resources in the process. Current renewable are a joke, and billions (if not trillions) of dollars are needed to make them competitive, which is not worth the cost, especially as I argued warming may help humans and more CO2 = more plants. Green energy is not a logical solution [12]. If the Kyto agreement would not stop warming, and is only a first step, converting to green energy would likely have no effect [5]. Further, photovoltaic"s are inefficient, and uncompetitive [6]. 4. Extinctions First, CO2 is not a pollutant, meaning his position is illogical here. Second, mass extinctions are not occurring. A 2009 study notes, ""after five years, a re-visitation of the summit areas revealed a considerable increase of species richness at the upper alpine and subnival zone (10% and 9%, respectively) and relatively modest increases at the lower alpine zone and the treeline ecotone (3% and 1%, respectively)." In addition, with respect to threats of extinction, they reported that "during the last five years, the endemic species of the research area were hardly affected," while "at the highest summit, one endemic species was even among the newcomers."[14] As we can see, animals are not being affected by warming. CONCLUSION: Global warming is (1) exaggerated, (2) not man made, (3) fixing it is impossible, and would not help anyone, and (4) extinctions are a widely popularized myth that has been refuted. http://www.debate.org...
