Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewUS Should Engage More With China Concerning Climate Change
Us should definetely engage more with China concerning climate change since these two countries are at the top of the most influential countries in the world. And climate change is a global problem that can only be soluted if major countries cooperate and try to solve together this issue that doesn't affect one country in specific but the whole Humanity
Fossil fuel subsidies contradict fight against climate change.
Steve Kretzmann. "Money for nothing, and your climate for free." Oil Change International. September 16th, 2011: "The principle is simple and clear: You can’t really say you’re committed to the fight against climate change if you’re still funding oil and coal. If you’re in a hole, stop digging."
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
In other words you claim Donald Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything to turn heads. The fact that Donald Trump words suggest that Donald Trump thinks Climate Changeis a hoax does not matter. I'll accept that. Politicians are know to lie. I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not given me any option, other than to create a new argument in the 3rd round, so here it goes. Actions speak louder than words Donald Trump destroyed a scientific area of interest and natural habitat in order to build a golf course in Scotland. [3][4] Clearly, both in actions and words Trump has no respect for the environment. My opponent has shown that Trump is a compulsive liar, so his words should not matter. I think the only out for my opponent now is to prove that Trump knows that climate change is real and a threat, but is so greedy that he destroys the environment anyway. Thanks for the debate. Sources 3. http://www.imdb.com... 4. http://www.nytimes.com...
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
"I then further read under the category of "What's Not Certain" the EPA states it is not certain about "Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes."" But in the section about what they do know, they say that they know that it's happening, and they know that it's caused by humans. They're just not certain about how much humans contribute, percentagewise. "Furthermore, the EPA's research is under suspicion anyway. There are two EPA workers who are highly critical of the EPA's memo on carbon gas. The are critical of both the substances of and the process behind the agency's proposed findings" The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans. If you want to take a memo that may or may not have been slightly unsupportive towards the climate change plight and construe it so it looks like it is destroying years of scientific conjecture, well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Do I wish that climate change wasn't happening, you bet I do. But unfortunately that's not the case. "Additionally, in November of 2009, over 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were posted on the internet." Oy gevalt! You went there... To answer your argument, yes, I am aware of the scandal, but no, I do not believe that it means anything, other than the fact that deniers are going to be that much more difficult to deal with. As I said, it would be really nice if you were right, but the sad fact is that years of scientific conjecture are not going to change because of a few emails. These emails are just a red herring of sorts. But to claim that they overturn years of science and research is ludicrous at best. "We are talking about an average over a long period of time to determine warming. Everyone would agree that one hour or one day of higher than normal temperatures does not constitute as a long enough time to establish global warming." You are correct, but the increased incidence of unusual occurrences and records make it clear that something is happening. For example, we have always had El Nino events, but they have become much more common and much stronger in recent years. If we didn't have that trend, an El Nino year would just mean that the south Pacific was warm at that particular point. Now, it means that the south Pacific is getting warmer, and it might not go back. "The EPA report you continue to quote says that it is uncertain in "Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range." If your coveted EPA cannot project future climate changes, how can you?" Greenhouse emissions are from people, my friend. We don't know how society will be in the future, and so we can't know how the climate will change if we don't know what we're going to be putting into the system. "They continue to explain they aren't certain about "Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover."" I'm sorry, but Merlin does not run the EPA. You can try to tell Lisa Jackson that she needs to take psychic lessons. My point is, there is a fine line between following scientific trends and predicting the future. We can't study things that haven't happened yet, or are so new that we can't have seen the results. That is why they invented CFC's in the first place; because they didn't know that CFC's eat up the ozone layer. "There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist." I agree with that whole statement except all of it. There are minor red herrings around scientific secrecy, most likely so other scientists won't discover what they're trying to discover before they discover it. Yes, I know that that's unfortunate, but it by no means disproves or even hurts the case for climate change. "The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change." I believe that to be a gross misinterpretation on your part. They are certain that humans, in some way or another, affect climate change. They just don't quite know exactly how or how much. "I must defer back to you yet again after you read all this compelling evidence and explain that the burden or proof is yours to prove and without it, American Only regulations cannot be expected." You have shown me your "evidence," but the burden of proof is, in fact, upon yourself to show how that "evidence" can be applied as anything other than a mildly interesting piece of information. I'm sorry, but a memo and some emails can't just negate every single piece of information I gave you. If that was how life worked, we wouldn't get anywhere. It is really irresponsible to interpret facts like that, because you are completely ignoring the vast majority of facts. (Can you tell how much I enjoy the argument that it is a scandal/hoax?) "This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community." Once again, how is this anything but a slightly interesting piece of trivia. You can analyze and scrutinize all of the more controversial aspects to the world's end, but you really need to look for the big picture. Basically, what I'm saying is that I really could care less about these so-called "scandals" because they do absolutely nothing to my argument, which you seem to have completely lost track of. "very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today." So, what you're saying is that, whether or not this was a hoax, this graph made us realize and study something which is very real. If you think that this is the only research that has been done, I don't see how you can be qualified to debate this. The fact is, the vast majority of the evidence that we have is absolutely real, peer reviewed data from independent labs. So, I don't want to hear about your scandals or conspiracy theories, because you are completely missing the point. The fact is, any data or theories opposing the idea of climate change absolutely pale in comparison to all of the evidence and conclusions that climate change is a very real problem with very real consequences and very real ways to prevent it. It is ignorant and irresponsible to deny that. As I said earlier, if there is any reasonable evidence that climate change is caused by humans, there is absolutely no reason to not be more responsible in what we do, just in case. Every single other country is leaps and bounds more responsible than the US in terms of environmental issues. Obviously it would be virtually impossible to spontaneously get 300 million people to be more responsible, so that's why the government needs to step in. There is nothing that says that the US has special rights to spew greenhouse gases into the environment at our own expense as well as the expense of the rest of the world. That is irresponsible. That is selfish. That is just incredibly, astoundingly, disgustingly stupid. It is an incredibly easy fix, and there is nothing more important. What kid doesn't grow up without wanting to save the world? Well, my friend, environmental protections very literally save the world. I would like to thank my opponent for making excellent arguments and, admittedly, being much friendlier than I. While my opponent has done a wonderful job, his arguments were completely unsupported by no fault of his own, but because there is nothing to support them with. It is a fact that humans cause climate change, and the government can very easily alleviate our impact. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to not vote PRO. Thank you.
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Aff 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.
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
Well, Firstly, You have ignored my first post completely and not addressed any of the information that I have supplied. In order to win this debate you must address your opponents comments and points otherwise it is not a debate but just a display of ideas without any acknowledgement or refutation of your opponents ideas. I will attempt to address your comments which you have thus failed to do. 1. Consensus is not a valid scientific methodology. Nothing can be proven just through shear weight of numbers of people that believe something to be true. The only way to prove something to be true or false is through - logic, Evidence and reason. The science community is not going to provide any evidence against climate change because they make a living out of it and therefore, It is not in their monetary and career related ambitions to disprove it. 2. Experts. You can't always trust an expert. Especially, If they can make money from their mistakes or by telling lies. This is the case for climate change scientists. It is far more profitable and they have better career prospects if they agree with climate change then if they disagree with it. 3. Car industry example - Is that why Volkswagen was sued for 4 billion of dollars in regards to providing false data in regards to engine exhaust emissions? Is that why millions of vehicles are recalled each year in regards to unsatisfactory and unsafe parts? 4. Computer trust - I paid for anti -virus software for many years until I learnt through trial and error that I didn't need it. Thus, All disease and virus is avoidable through proper diet (for humans) and intake of proper data (uncorrupted) in the case of computers. Thus, The computer industry profits from anti-virus software which is essentially unnecessary. Note - I can - build my own computer, Fix electrical problems, Plumbing, Fix car, Carpentry, Painting, Build house and grow my own food. Thus, I am not reliant on the system to provide for me for anything. Quote - Climate change is an existential threat. As seen by the livescience link humanity will be doomed by 2050 if we ignore climate change for the next thirty years. [0] Large portions of Earth will be inhabitable which will lead to unrest and possibly war. This means climate change could cause the extinction of the human race. Reply - I have already shown data on the properties of CO2 which show that the climate is not going to disintegrate in the future. Note - If the climate did get hotter, This would be a bonus for humanity because it would mean increases in agricultural output. There are no negative aspects of temperature increase. Note - We are still moving out of the Ice Age, Which began occurring 10, 000 years ago. This is what has triggered mankind's growth over this time period. If the Ice Age didn't end, We would be still living in caves to this very day. 5. Who started the IPCC? Answer - Maurice Strong. A convicted communist sympathizer who spent his last days hiding in China under the protection of the Chinese Communist Party and wanted for several crimes in relation to extortion and theft of money. Known as the U. N. 's Oil-for-Food- Programme.
First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
===Definitions=== First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens. To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong. ===Framework=== The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so. Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change. Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4]. Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries. ===Conclusion=== As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. ===Sources=== [1] http://zfacts.com... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant) [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly. I would like to begin my rebuttal of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round. 1. Global Warming is real and a threat As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder -- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2] Climate change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid. However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression). [4] As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7] 2. Humans are the cause of global warming climate change* There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a. This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average temperature. [10] Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat, and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12] We must also remember that this post-wartime economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had all the goods we could need (for the time being). 3. It should be stopped--specfically with green energy As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption. It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers, need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research. To give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior research to have been frivilous. In Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponent's points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you. [1] http://www.climate-charts.com... [2] http://www.nws.noaa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2010. [6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009. [7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. [8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738. [9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate". Nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012. [12] http://www.epa.gov... (1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago (2*) ppm- Parts Per Million
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Thank You for a timely response, I will first go over my opponent's arguments, then go back to my own. First, my opponent talked about how many countries are in debt, and are not in the position to mitigate climate change. However, Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.- USA today. Judge, 20 trillion dollars is the biggest number in this debate, and you have to look to our side for this argument. Not only that, but my second argument clearly talks about how mitigating the effects of climate change can increase jobs in the renewable energy field. Obsviously, since the benefits outweigh the harms, developed countries should have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Their second argument was that developing countries are the countries who wil suffer the worst and the have a huge incentive. However, my opponent is misunderstanding that point. This is about whether these countries should have a MORAL obligation, and as the pollution of CO2 emmissions from these developing countries are going to be pushed to the devloped countries, we have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the average atmospheric temperature rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit. By 2000, that increase was responsible for the annual loss of about 160,000 lives and the loss of 5.5 million years of healthy life, according to estimates by the World Health Organization. The toll is expected to double to about 300,000 lives by 2020. Judge, if my opponent can prove that the developed countries don't have a moral obligation to save so many lives, and if he can show the justification of the deaths of so many people because of climate change, then they should win. If he cannot, you have to vote for the pro. My opponents last argument was essentially that developing countries are the ones with the better ideas. However, my opponent gives not evidence or examples backing this claim up, so it should be disregared. Now, to my side. First, I want to go over that adaptation is still an option. Adapting is always an idea. Vaccines which can save 9 million lives is a significant way to adapt, which will lessen the impacts of climate change, therefore mitigating the effects of climate change. Second, global warming can cause harms to the economy, such as a price tag of 1.9 trillion dollars each year by 2100. Mitigating the effects will enable us to avoid this number, and create more money and jobs. Third, my switching to renewable energy, we can stop sending money to terrorist groups, greatly decreasing their proft. Fourth, the enviornment can be greatly saved, saving millions of human lives as well as near extinct species.
The political science of climate change
I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go. Green Guilt CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence. Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists.” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming. Globalist Elite Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well. Final Thoughts The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round. Sources: (Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts.) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4] http://www.sciencemag.org... [5] http://www.pnas.org... [6] http://www.sciencemag.org... [7] http://academic.evergreen.edu... [8] http://www.ecd.bnl.gov... [9] http://courses.washington.edu... [10] http://www.nature.com... [11] http://www.geneseo.edu...
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.
My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled. 2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC. http://joannenova.com.au... Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says. 3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion? (a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol (b) Oceans are rising? Really? I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling. 4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information. 5. Hockey stick fraud. This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. https://www.steynonline.com... 6. NOAA temperature fraud. https://realclimatescience.com...
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. There has been wonderful information and opinion shared by both sides and it has been enjoyable. That said, in all three of the rounds, I fail to see a direct connection between humans and global warming proven by my opponent. Without a direct connection, and surely without a direct cause, regulations are only going to funnel money from one big organization to another and not fix the problem. We cannot be expected to blindly throw money at a guess and hope things change. In addition to the lack of evidence directly linking global warming to humans, there is also no proof as to how these regulations will actually change anything in terms of climate. There have been numerous scare tactic comments followed by minimal solutions which may or may not fix a problem that may or may not exist. It has also not been shown to what extend regulations on the American people will have on the globe as a whole. In fact, the EPA have stated that if there is a 60% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050, the global temperature will be reduced by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. (http://www.heritage.org...) I can understand that any change in the right direction is a good thing but at what cost and for what result? This is nearly 100 years later and since the EPA has already admitted that they do not know how much of a role the environment plays on climate change, how many other factors could go in to altering these numbers. Also, the American economy is in a troubling time at the moment and a further burden on businesses will only increase the problem; all because there is a chance that the temperatures may reduce by .2 degrees in 85 years. This is simply too far fetched of a plan to cause enforcement of regulations. I continue to talk about these loose connections between global warming and humans because, even if my opponent may not personally agree, there are many well respected scientists who have not been involved in scandals stating that there is no link. In December of 2008, the US Senate Minority leader released a report which included 650 dissenting scientist refuting the EPA's Claims. As of April 2009, that number increased to over 700 scientist. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which the EPA relied heavily on in their conclusions only had 52 scientists; less than 1/13th of those opposed. (http://www.heritage.org...) While some try to sweep this decent under the rug in yet another scandalous act, there are some things which cannot be disputed. If the EPA has their way and is able to regulate CO2 output by the American people, it would be the most expansive and most expensive environmental regulation in history. In addition, it will let the EPA bypass the legislative process complete. In essence, the decisions of a few will drastically alter the lives of many; all for a change in the Earth's temperature too small to ever notice. (http://www.heritage.org...) The non profit group from the home state of my opponent, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have started a petition against the adoption of regulations on the American businesses and public in the name of global warming. They have had over 31,000 American scientists sign this petition stating they have reviewed the research literature and found no link between humans and global weather changes. (http://www.oism.org...) In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was discussed earlier having a direct link on the EPA's conclusions have failed to prove a link between humans and global warming. The IPCC actually states, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. The sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate process." (http://www.aproundtable.org...) So by their own admission, their researched is filled with errors and speculation. Over and over again, my opponent continually denies the the overwhelming data which shows there has yet to be a direct link proven between humans and global warming. If there was a direct link out there to be proven, why hasn't anyone done it yet; not just in America but across the world? A huge scandal took place involving the Climate Research Unit and it is simply dismissed by my opponent as he states, "I do not believe that it means anything". The EPA has explained they are uncertain as to the cause of global warming and how human involvement relates to climate change. My opponent responds by saying, "They're just not certain about how much humans contribute", as if that somehow makes it okay to impose regulations on Americans. If the EPA is uncertain as to what the human contributions are and if the EPA reports are under suspicion anyway, why would we put them in charge of regulating American businesses and lives? My opponent's defense to all this uncertainty around global warming and human cases of climate change is that, he wishes global warming did not exist, but it does. He continues to claim that, "The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans". But he has failed to show this overwhelming evidence and has moved from the EPA's 'unknown' significance of human involvement to his new statement claiming human involvement actually being 'significant'; an unsubstantiated leap to say the least. While I give my opponent credit for commenting on most of the scandals and scientific reports disproving his case, I simply cannot agree that global warming exists because he says so. Those who blindly support global warming caused by humans continually write off these problems in their data as 'minor red herrings' but fail to show the actual connection. This debate, as many others, has tried to turn the table on who has the burden of proof. The side believing global warming is caused by humans still needs to prove and show a direct link between the human involvement and in what capacity. But what we have here is my opponent claiming, personally, that it not only exists and is caused by humans but any data which disproves this claim should be dismissed as minor speed bumps. My opponent makes a remarkably embellishment of the facts as he claims, "The fact is, any data or theories opposing the idea of climate change absolutely pale in comparison to all of the evidence and conclusions that climate change is a very real problem with very real consequences and very real ways to prevent it. It is ignorant and irresponsible to deny that." Does my opponent really expect us to believe that he has reviewed all the information offered on both sides of this debate to such an extent that he can numerically calculate which side has more evidence? It is scary, to me, that people make such vast generalizations. It is also scary, to all of us, when those such as my opponent talk about human habits equating to death. These general speculations and scare tactics do not translate into fact as shown above. Without absolute proof that human change will alter climate, there is absolutely no need for government to step in and alter our economic strength and way of life. I thank my opponent for starting this topic and for a great debate!
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Alright... So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the burden of demonstrating your claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. *I* just have to demonstrate that it's not necessarily true. Dividing it into percentages or fractions doesn't make any sense. Think of it like a courtroom, the defense is just trying to refute the claims of the prosecution, and doesn't carry a higher burden than that. Anyway, my contentions haven't been addressed at all... My opponent just re-read another statement with Trump saying he doesn't believe in climate change but my original contention already refutes that as it discredits the words of Trump and actually looks deeper into his intentions as a presidential candidate. My opponent's guilty of oversimplifying the situation here. Thank you. Good luck in your last round.
Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.
Zarul: 1. You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. Reply: No, it's not hypothetical because what is being debated is one variable about demand for trees. If you want more trees, you want the demand for trees to be as high as possible and recycling paper prevents that. What recycling doesn't have an effect on is saving native forests, which I will get to later. Zarul: As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Reply: Go to Office Max, go to the paper section. Recycled on one self, non-recycled on the other. They are competing. Zarul: "Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. Zarul: A.When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment." Reply: Yes, and then you plant it again and it grows back. Zarul: B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. …if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. Reply: Yes, they keep growing. But what you are leaving out is that they only keep growing in one direction because gravity takes a toll after a while—That's why trees don't grow to be the size of sky scrappers. Trees have an initial growth spurt where they use the most carbon dioxide (growing in two dimensions) and then level off. Old forests really do little for carbon dioxide regulation. http://www.usatoday.com... Zarul: D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. Reply: 1. Leaves are what regulate carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis separates the carbon from the oxygen and stores the carbon in the wood and roots. 2. The discussion was about climate change, not biodiversity or soil erosion. With breakthroughs in genetic mapping, we don't need nature to be the record keeper of genetics. Erosion is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human interaction. Luckily since about the middle ages we have figured out to reduce this with field rotation, and other modern methods. So for point E: If the land were privately held, the tree farmer would keep it at a minimum to ensure more growth and higher profits. Zarul: F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. Reply: How do species going extinct cause climate change? CO2 is the end product of metabolism. If anything, that would lead to less carbon dioxide. Ofcourse I'm not saying we should kill off every animal because they produce C02, just that you need to think through some more about what climate change is. Zarul: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. Reply: No, the countries that contribute the most to climate change are Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The number one cause of deforestation is clearing of land for farming. Urban development, mining, oil extraction, and logging are others. Paper has little to do with virgin forests. By making tree farming more profitable, you are encouraging that at least some of that land will be kept for re-growing trees. Zarul: Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. Reply: No, it would most likely be an American or European country that makes the discovery and uses it in lands in other countries. Why this hasn't happened yet is a separate issue dealing with farm welfare in America and Europe. Zarul: "You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? Reply: Where the national ones are now. If you are poor and the forest is what stands in your way of planting a crash crop, then you will cut it down. If we didn't recycle paper, trees would be more valuable as a resource, so instead of cutting down the forest to farm wheat, you might be more inclined to cut down the forest and replant it. (ofcourse, there are also some trade policies that affect this, but that is neither here nor their) Zarul: My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. Reply: The burden of proof is on you. Zarul: You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved." Reply: Because it is happening now, and the deforestation has little to do with paper and more to do with clearing land for farming other things. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging the farming of trees over other things. Zarul: Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. Reply: But the new wood is picked up from one centralized location—where it is being farmed. To recycle paper you have to have several trucks drive vast distances to collect what amounts to little paper per unit of distance traveled. If it were so much cheaper to recycle, then private companies would have started doing it a long time ago. Instead the government has to subsidies it (with money taken by force), which hides the true costs. Follow the prices. Zarul: C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. Reply: No they won't. We can afford to waste money on recycling because we are rich. Recycling is not an industry. Here is the fallacy of that argument: Suppose I went around every house on my block and broke a window by throwing a rock through it. The person who fixes windows would get a lot of business. Is this helping the economy? No, because the money people spend on fixing their windows means they have to forgo something else—instead of buying a new window, they could have bought some new pants.So you see recycling as creating jobs, so it must be good for the economy, but you are forgetting that by creating those jobs, you are forgoing spending that money on something. That's all I could fit in. Well done, good luck to you.
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.
What does subways have to do with climate change? Even though the idea of subways was to allow freedom of movement at all times, it is still a idea or vision for the subway and that does not mean it works in practice. Putting the subways aside; no it is not always that the weather forecasts are exact, but they are very often right. When we see a weather forecast, you are right that they are not 100% right, but there is a good reason for that. When you have to forecast the weather, you look at the different pressures in the different areas and thereby predicting e.g. a storms movement a behaviour. So when you see a weather forecast, it is 100% right if nothing in the pressure changed since it was made. Climate change and weather forecast are scientifically proved. Since we can measure the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which is 0.06%, while it was 0.05% 50 years ago. That's an increase on 20% which is obvious with the boom in the oil industry.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent accepts that his first argument is a correlation so there is no need to strengthen my argument there. My opponents second argument states, """When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.""" To disprove this I will do it line by line. Line 1: When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit This line is true but only in some cases. For example, the mini ice age, which we exited 1000 years ago, was not initiated by changes in the earths orbit. Line 2: This line is just wrong. The oceans do store Co2 but what is released when they warm is mostly water vapor, not Co2. This water vapor then causes more clouds which then cools the Earth. This is common knowledge among scientists because this is exactly how cosmic rays cause cooling. Line 3: Yes, rising temperature causes more Co2 to be released but by simply looking at ice core data we can see that this does not cause an infinite rise in temperature. The temperature then drops and rises again independent of the Co2 that was released from the previous rise. For an example, look at this graph: http://www.geocraft.com... My opponents next argument is just plain wrong. My opponent states, ""Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." " To disprove this all you need to do is read the caption at the top of the graph below where it lists its source. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... As you can see, the graph was not based on temperature estimates but the "global mean temperature change..." I don't know where you got the idea that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998 but from your sources it seems that this data is only true once you remove the El Nino. My question to you is why hasn't the Earth warmed since the El Nino. In the 20 years since the temperature maximum temperature doesn't increase at all. In addition to this, the El Nino just proves the fact that there are other influences in climate that influence temperature more then Co2 or enough to distort data. For my opponents next argument he states that my source is not credible. This is just not true. Just because the maker of the website is paid to research evidence against man made global warming does not immediately make all of his evidence untrue. My opponent does not provide any actual contrary evidence to debate this point but to satisfy their needs I will give a link to multiple graphs sourced from other websites showing the same thing. http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.drroyspencer.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com... My opponents next argument is not relevant to man made climate change. My opponents next argument states, "Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5] As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. " I will cede this point to my opponent as it is a result of warming and not relevant to man causing the warming. I should not have brought it up and while I still have arguments to dispute it do not wish to argue this view any longer. As for why the documentary was manipulated, I do not wish to argue this any more either for the same reasons listed above nevertheless I will provide a short article to explain my first argument. I know that the article does not provide much info on the subject but if you really want to understand the argument then you need to research it yourself. http://www.newsmax.com... Nextl, to strengthen my point of the debate, I will argue that Earth is not the only planet warming. The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field, Jupiter"s "white ovals" are disappearing and melding together in its atmosphere (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. As you can see from the long paragraph I have provided above, the entire Solar System seems to be warming or experiencing some sort of weird climate change patterns. This indicates more then just a global event. To conclude my argument, I will provide a graph of Co2 and Temperature over the long term that should, on its own, disprove entirely the idea of man-made climate change. http://www.paulmacrae.com...
Humans cause climate changing
In response to my contention that the planet does not need humans in order for the climate to change, my opponent has simply stated that, it was 248 Million years ago, implying, I assume, that this is not relevant to today's climate. The problem with this statement is twofold. First of all, the Mesozoic Era ended in the late Cretaceous, which was 65 Million years ago as opposed to 248. That's considerably closer to modern time. Also, in the period closer to us, there was no Ice at The poles. [1] The second issue I have with this rebuttal is that the Mesozoic era is not the only example of pre-industrial age climate change. In fact, duing the last 2 billion years the earths climate has been fluctuating between a "hot house" and an "Ice House", clearly illustrated in the chart below: Taken from http://www.scotese.com... [2] In fact, If you look at the chart, you notice that, for a long period of time we have had a downwards trend in the climate of the earth. This is infact, the longest downward trend in recorded history. So we are actually long overdue for a warming earth, and when you look at the big picture, the logical thing for the earth is for it to keep warming as it has in the past. Next we move on to my opponents next point, about humans actually having deliberately influenced the weather. While at first it may seem like this is an insurmountable argument for man-made climate change, it is actually rather irrelevant. You see, what my opponent has failed to take into account is the difference between climate and weather. Climate is defined as: 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. [3] So humans deciding that they do not want it to rain tomorrow is not an example of climate change, it is an example of weather change. Even a nuclear explosion, which will change the weather for perhaps a few months, is still not climate change, as it has not had a sustained, long term affect on the climate. The very article that Pro provides to substantiate his claim that CO2 emissions by humans are the leading cause of climate chanche clearly lists water vapour as the most common greenhouse gas found in the atmosphere. And how does water vapour get into the atmosphere? By evaporation powered by the sun, not by humans. And while I will conceded that humans are the No.1 producer of CO2 in the world, as I said in my previous argument, methane, a common natural gas, is actually more effective at trapping head than Carbon Dioxide. A single volcano, such as Mount Eyjafjoell in Iceland, can produce around 300,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. This places the one volcano alone above countries such as Austria, Portugal and Ireland in terms of emmisions. In conclusion I have clearly demonstrated how the earths climate can easily change, and has been changing, without any help from man, how many made weather is not climate change and how human CO2 emission is not such a big problem as we think it is. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com... [2] http://www.scotese.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
Outline I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. V. Climate has steadily increased VI. Conclusion VII. Works cited Round three rebuttals. I will now respond to my opponent’s round one and two arguments. In round four I will respond to round three and round five I will respond to round four. This is out of fairness since my opponent will not get a chance to respond to my round five. I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth When you add more Co2 to the atmosphere, The Co2 reaches a higher point in space, Increasing the greenhouse warming effect. The greenhouse warming effect is nowhere near saturation. The myth revolves around the misrepresentation that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, So therefore, Greenhouse warming is at a saturation point. While it is true that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, Some of the heat escapes further up into the atmosphere. Thus, More Co2 will reach further into the atmosphere. Insert picture of Australia and heat rising if possible from skepticalscience. Dana1981 updated July 2015. [5] II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. First, There are climate change scientists, And they are only about 100 of them, They are experts within experts on climate change. Second, There are many scientists who disagree about climate change in less related fields, And they still have their jobs. Source Denial 101x course. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. A virus is very small compared to a human. Yet, The measles virus kills over 100, 000 people a year. The flu viruses kills 291, 000 and 646, 000 people each year. Source CDC [6]. Viruses are measured in nanometer or one billionth of a meter. Source [7] britannica. Com That’s one millionth of a millimeter. Now if viruses kill humans everyday it is very possible for humans to act like a virus and destroy the atmosphere of the Earth. Destroying the Earth as in Darth Vader and the Death Star would be extremely difficult given our current level of technology, But destroying the atmosphere. Yes, Very feasible. Two main ways, One global cooling through nuclear winter. Option two, Global warming through greenhouse gas emission. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. First, I will add that governments historically have performed terrible atrocities, Slaves of Sparta, Slaughter of native Americans Indians during colonial times, Slave state of blacks in southern USA, The Armenian genocide, WWII holocaust of the Jews, And many more. Therefore, The instigator is correct to have a baseline level of mistrust for government. Yet, This mistrust is taken too far and thus extreme. I concur that Iraq probably was about the oil and not about freedom. Yet, Of that long list of conspiracy theories that is the only point I agree with. The world did not go into an Ice Age because we stopped using aerosols that damaged the ozone layer which also caused global cooling. Most of the conspiracies seemed to be linked to medical and viruses which is off-topic and pseudoscience. Ironically the instigator is the one who is confused by invisible monsters. Quacks constantly fear monger. Brain fog, Leaky gut syndrome, chemtrails, BPA, and many more invisible monsters to scare innocents out of money. BPA for example there just is not enough information according to sciencebasedmedicine. Org Steven Novella September 17th 2008. Just look at this sentence “Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them. ” Akhenaten Just replace governments with quacks. Thus, The world quacks constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science. A confused mass of people has not got time because they are so preoccupied running and hiding from invisible monsters that the quacks create to scare them. V. Climate has steadily increased I will now respond to round one. Here is a picture, Hopefully of how ocean water temperatures have steadily increased. Yes climate change is human made, The change is mostly due to Co2 from burning of fossil fuels via industrial activities. About the communists and dictators this is an inflammatory, False accusation, And bare assertion. Finally, The link between climate change and communist shows overt conservative bias on the instigator’s part, Reds under the bed mentality. Most like this person has a high belief in free market and thus disbelieving climate change on those grounds. Deciding that climate change is false and then looking for evidence to back up the decision as opposed to looking for evidence first and then a conclusion. I learned the above from the denial 101x course about deniers come to a conclusion first and look for evidence second. The conclusion is based upon strong belief in a free market economy. VI. Conclusion I have show how my opponent’s claim about Co2 saturation is misleading since Earth is nowhere near a greenhouse saturation point. Co2 is only saturated at the surface, But some of the heat escapes higher into the atmosphere and then trapped by Co2 higher in the atmosphere. I have disproved my opponent’s claim about scientists being fired for disagreeing with climate change, Plenty in unrelated fields do and keep their jobs. I have shown that humans can have a tremendous impact on the climate despite having a small mass compared to the Earth. First, With an analogy of a virus to a human. Despite the virus being much smaller, Still being able to kill humans. Second, Humans could easily cause a nuclear winter and thus global cooling. Finally, Global warming can be caused via excessive atmospheric Co2. Quacks are doing the fear mongering, Not governments. Global warming is occurring now costing 150, 000 lives annually and can be seen by rising ocean temperatures. VII. Works cited debate. Org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/4346963/ Hopefully this work cited works. I had to give up on the pictures was not posting.
The political science of climate change
That was great, very professional. As I am in no way a polished or trained debater I relish the opportunity to rebut your arguments. It is truly fun to mix it up with the ivory tower crowd! I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but maybe next time. I will attempt to put this in a format that is organized, but please forgive me if you get confused. Green Guilt Is there anyone on the planet that would disagree that the IPCC is the driving force behind the religion of AGW, even fabricating, or manipulating data in order to prove their foregone conclusion? Here is a good article explaining the problems with the IPCC. http://wattsupwiththat.com... See, they actually are political, but when people only follow what .gov tells them they miss these things. As far as green guilt goes, it is part of the religion of Climate Change, kind of like sinning. Teach the children to feel guilty, especially here in America and they will follow blindly. Eugenicists A couple articles on that. http://www.edie.net... http://www.thenewamerican.com... Who are the elite globalist eugenicists? Here they are. http://truthstreammedia.com... By the way you never addressed Agenda 21, the bible of the modern eugenic billionaires. The Globalist Elites Bill Gates and Soros, two of the most influential Soros even helped the Nazis confiscate Jews property during the holocaust and has no remorse, in his own words. http://thearrowsoftruth.com... http://say-no-to-agenda-21-de-population.blogspot.com... I do appreciate that you cited scholarly articles however I doubt that you personally could prove any part of them except that they were written by folks that desperately want to keep their high paying, world traveling, taxpayer subsidized jobs, and are willing to write almost anything to make the politicians happy, and who buys the politicians? The Elites. I will go further into Agenda 21 as I really would like your input on this. My take is that United Nations Agenda 21 is a soft tyranny based eugenic plan formed with the blessing of Gates, Soros and their henchmen that live above the world in partnership with entities like the UN and The World Bank. The plan is very complicated, well thought out, and full of players/minions that think of nothing except how they can get a big paycheck from these guys. Agenda 21 starts with creating the illusion that humans are wrecking the planet with CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, measured in parts per MILLION, and is actually very beneficial to plants. It is plant food, and is barely detectable, except it is the perfect measure to justify their energy reducing actions. There is a man named Maurice Strong who may be one of the most influential players you never heard of, but he is very powerful and has been pulling strings at the UN for a long long time. Here is some background. http://www.infowars.com... I prefer you watch the videos of Soros and Strong as their own words convict themselves as eugenic minded elites. By the way the industrialized world he is talking about dismantling is us, so park your carbon spewing conveyance, and ride a bike to work, or maybe you do already. The goal of agenda 21 is to move the vast majority of population into cities and to reclaim the land for use only by elites and their slaves, like the ones Marx wanted to till the fields. Are you familiar with Marxism? All of the elites are into it big time, even our president. Anyway, I want to give you a chance to rebut so I will leave you with all that, make of it what you will and please do not hesitate to challenge me and we can go 5 or more rounds if you are interested, I love to challenge the establishment. Thanks!
Debate.org
