args

CON

• CON

  Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? ......

  Show full argument

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

  I accept this challenge. My first argument is that the governments of developed countries is not the only way we can solve this problem. There are things like individuals, organizations and more that can help. For example, fossil fuels like gasoline, when burned, indirectly cause climate change due to CO2. However, gas prices are going up, and people will switch to greener alternatives as they cannot afford gas. Plus, developed countries are not producing all the pollution in the world, but climate change is a global issue, and just developed nations is not enough. For example, the US actually produces less co2 than China, which produces 7,031,916 thousand metric tons per year, compared to the U.S. 5,461,014 thousand tons.[1] So, all developed nations do produce a lot of CO2, but a lot of CO2 is from other nations. Climate change is a global problem, but you are just thinking that developed nations should not only remove their impact, but also impacts from other nations. Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? (No personal attack intended.) "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." As I said before, as gas prices rise, they will get less profit as more people switch to other energy. Plus, you are talking about renewable energy, which is linked but a separate topic. "The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created." But lot's of CO2 are from developing countries! And you said only developed nations should do this, so they have to clean up someone else's mess. "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." Global warming has many deadly consequences, but this does not mean that developed nations should clean up someone else's mess. You said " Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created.", but this is not completely the fault of developed nations. In conclusion, all nations, not just developed nations, have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Developed-Countries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 25.14

    climate: 15.03

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 7.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.49)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 9.97

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.49)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the...

  Show full argument

  Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

  The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the only ways. Most industries that pollute are subsidized b\y the government. All we have to do is abolish the government and those industries will stop polluting. Nd we wouldn't even have to regulate anything.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Governments-need-to-take-radical-action-to-combat-climate-change/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 25.12

    climate: 14.95

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 9.93

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Perhaps all of the carbon emissions from cavemen roasting...

  Show full argument

  Climate Shift

  Climate shift is demonstrably real, we have evidence of climate shift happening several times during the history of Earth. We have geological evidence of glacial migration that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, where did they go? Perhaps all of the carbon emissions from cavemen roasting wooly mammoths (now extinct) caused global warming in the distant past. Perhaps it is an unavoidable cycle that isn't well documented because of the extremely long cycle length? We should be concerned with the unavoidable climate shift, each and every one of us should be deeply concerned. Be it man made climate shift or a natural cycle, it is still climate shift. Unfortunately those among us who realize that we need to learn how to live with minimal impact on mother earth are openly mocked as hippies, and those who prepare themselves for surviving some great calamity are openly mocked and tin foil hat wearing nutters. Meanwhile the great minds of our society are pointing fingers and making measurements trying to assign blame. And the great solution that has been presented is to carbon tax our way out of this mess, which of course can only be issued by the threat of force. I don't agree that anything is "resolved".

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 25.11

    climate: 21.57

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 8.72 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.82)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)

    real: 3.17

    premises: 2.81 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.98)
• CON

  The upswing in the temperature started from 1975,...

  Show full argument

  ManBearPig is real.

  The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth. "Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years." "Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear." "Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version." "Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift." "Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/ManBearPig-is-real./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 25.11

    climate: 8.46

    premises: 7.24 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 3.31

    premises: 2.96 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)

    real: 13.34

    conclusion: 9.05 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 3.95 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.89)
• CON

  Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the...

  Show full argument

  Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

  If you wanted a serious debate then you would not have ignored my entire argument. So I guess since you are not paying attention to my arguments I will just have to disprove yours instead of adding to my own. You firstly say that, "The temperature has increased .87 Celsius." This is true, but you forgot to mention that the warming period that caused this rise started in the 1700's before the industrial revolution. In addition to this, the world has been naturally warming for the last 20,000 years. You ignored large amounts of scientific data in your argument and made a claim that I agree with. The world IS WARMING!!! It just is not caused by man. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... According to your second argument, Co2 is at 400 ppm. This is true, but there has been no substantial warming for the last 20 years which is proof of how temperature and Co2 act independently. In addition to this, 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during the last 20 year period. This in itself disproves your claim. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In addition to this, Co2 has been at much higher levels in the past. To restate what I said above, "Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000 ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time." There may be a clear and strong positive correlation between Co2 and temperature but this correlation has been weak compared to that of sun spots. For the majority of the 1900's sun spots correlated MORE STRONGLY to temperature then Co2 did. This means that sun spots had a bigger impact then Co2 on the temperature. Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the early 2000s but that is irrelevant because for the majority of the 1900's, when tons and tons of Co2 were released, the temperature was affected more by sun spots then it was by Co2. Another thing to point out, when sun spot numbers started to drop is when the flat line in temperature began. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://geoffair.net... In actual statistics, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007) http://i0.wp.com... http://inspirehep.net... https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In conclusion, not only have you ignored the majority of my first argument, you state claims that I am not even trying to disprove. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to debate or don't know how to debate my claims. In addition to this, you gave almost no evidence to support your claims, only sources of where you got the information. If you want to have a real debate, maybe reading my arguments would help. Your welcome

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./7/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.94

    climate: 9.28

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 7.32

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)

    real: 8.34

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.70 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.92)
• CON

  I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many...

  Show full argument

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

  Thanks to my opponent for a nice debate! 1. The only thing I got from your source is "The requested URL /files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf" was not found on this server." 2."If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. " First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all. Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all. 3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. " Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate climate change are separate topics. Oil is related to global warming, (Which we are not sure if it exists.), and related to terrorists, but this is nowhere linked to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Developed-Countries-have-a-moral-obligation-to-mitigate-the-effects-of-climate-change/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.79

    climate: 14.80

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 9.85

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  https://www. ... This is only what I get from the data...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.

  I hope you won't begrudge me but I had written out a 7, 000 word response with sources but something messed up and it's all gone and I just don't feel like trying to type it all up again so I'll just give a condensed version of what I said. There is a kind of hysteria on the level of cults that comes from the media and the climate activists. As I showed in my previous post, There have been many climate predictions over the last 50 years and all of them have been wrong. Greta and Extinction Rebellion are warning us of an impending crisis if we don't do something about our carbon emissions but we've seen that climate scientist have overstated the urgency of the data as evidenced by a video from the link you provided: https://www. Youtube. Com. . . The Green New Deal in America is suppose to be a policy for America to reduce their carbon footprint but when you read it, You get weird socialist passages like this: ". . . To promote justice and equity by stopping current, Preventing future, And repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, Communities of color, Migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, Depopulated rural communities, The poor, Low-income workers, women, The elderly, The unhoused, People with disabilities, And youth (referred to in this resolution as ""frontline and vulnerable communities"");" https://www. Congress. Gov. . . Am I the only one who's confused as to what any of this has to do with climate change? I want to also bring up the example of the Maldives which are small atoll islands that have been predicted to disappear under the sea for at least 30 years. https://trove. Nla. Gov. Au. . . The Former President wanted to buy a new island to house the populous and there were predictions as late as 2018 saying people would have to migrate sooner rather than later. "Hundreds of thousands of people will be forced from their homes on low-lying islands in the next few decades by sea-level rises and the contamination of fresh drinking water sources, Scientists have warned. " https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . This is despite articles stating that climate change might actually help the Maldives grow rather than shrink it. https://theconversation. Com. . . These are not scientific articles, I admit, But given the general fear of the Maldives falling into the sea, Why has the population increased with positive net migration since the early 2000s? https://tradingeconomics. Com. . . https://fred. Stlouisfed. Org. . . Why has foreign direct investment, Net inflows quadrupled since 2000? https://www. Indexmundi. Com. . . (%25%20of%20GDP)%20in%20Maldives, Value%20was%20%2D6. 01%20in%201982. Why did they construct a new runway at their international airport to the tune of US$400 million? https://maldivesindependent. Com. . . This all seems like a waste of money if all the houses built and sold ends up underwater in 30 years. Why are investors and businessmen gambling their money in this way when we're told that the Maldives will be gone? The problem I have with your sources is that they simply assert that climate change is due to our carbon emissions without really proving it. It's one thing to point to the 1860s and make a correlation and causation argument but if we look at data over 450, 000 years, Giving us a much bigger picture, We see that CO2 fluctuated throughout history with global temperature. A variation of 10 degrees Celsius throughout the course of the graph, Keeping in mind that the temperature increases that we're suppose to be worried about peak at 2 degrees Celsius. The graph peaks at around 330 ppm and bottoms out at around 160ppm. So even without human input, There are huge variation in global temperature and natural CO2. http://euanmearns. Com. . . The Mauna Observatory data shows that we are around 400 ppm. A big jump from natural levels but we've still not seen the correlation between CO2 and temperature. https://www. Esrl. Noaa. Gov. . . The greenhouse effect doesn't seem to take place in the way people think. This is only what I get from the data and I admit I'm not an expert in this field but there just doesn't seem to be any evidence that directly correlates CO2 levels with global temperature to make the statement that humans are greatly responsible, Enough at least for us to take any action to stop it.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-real-thing-and-we-could-be-in-danger-if-we-dont-act-fast./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.79

    climate: 13.09

    conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 6.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 7.43

    conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 2.70 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.05)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)

    real: 4.27

    conclusion: 3.93 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.55)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.84)
• CON

  I can further explain the burden of proof in a later...

  Show full argument

  Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

  Thanks for the debate and good luck! My opponent unfortunately makes some shallow assumptions, in that they believe Donald Trump legitimately believes everything he's said. Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof, and as such must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump actually believes this during the course of this debate. Failure to do so means a lack of his fulfillment of his burden of proof and thus means the negative wins the debate. I don't need to show that Trump DOESN'T believe this, just show that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that he does. I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in climate change then could be to pander to Cruz supporters, of which only 38% believed in climate change. This is a clear reason for Trump to pander to a specific audience in order to get votes, which gives us a motivation for Trump's actions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Trump even has told people that he has a strategy of saying odd things in order to attract the audience of different groups. Take for example what Carson reported after discussing the matter with Trump himself: "I needed to know that he could listen to other people, that he could change his opinions, and that some of the more outlandish things that he"s said, that he didn"t really believe those things," Carson said. When asked which statements Trump might back away from, Carson demurred". "I"ll let him talk about that because I don"t think it"s fair for me to relay a private conversation," he said. Read more: http://therightscoop.com... How can my opponent say for certain that Trump fully believes this if there's evidence of him saying that he'll back away from some of the more outlandish claims, and that he doesn't necessarily believe all of it? My opponent even recognized in the comments section that this is a somewhat outlandish and silly claim for Trump to make. We've seen Trump back away from policies such as the muslim ban, so why assume that this is his actual belief? Unfortunately my opponent uses mostly personal speculation and does not consider the large body of compelling evidence casting doubt over Trump's actual beliefs. With that I'll give pro a chance to respond to my contentions. Thank you!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.78

    climate: 14.08

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 4.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.00)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)

    change: 10.50

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.16 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.23)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new...

  Show full argument

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

  To warrant putting the Great Recession on the side, these would be nice answers to have. I'm going to keep this round rather brief and, hopefully then, concise. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. Climate Change cannot be stopped. It's a perpetual process. Humans no more caused it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] then they can stop it. It should also not be ignored that the human experience is destined to become, one day, as finite as the dinosaur. However, what we do have control over is our well-being. And economics, as dull as it proves through a teacher's mouth, is a very considerable determinant of a person's well-being. And that very same economics right now is putting a lot of working fathers and mothers on the street. This debate has been rather general, thus far. But let's not forget it's reach-in-topic is real. Millions of people have lost that state of well-being, and that's one thing that we have control over to fix. We should not give up that attempt for the sake of something perpetual in nature. In the truest sense, the economy ought to be taken care of first. In Conclusion That's all for now, I'll hand back over to Pro http://www.forbes.com... [1] http://useconomy.about.com...[2] http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com...[3] http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org... [4] http://american.com... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.wisegeek.com... [7] http://climatechange.procon.org... [8] http://climatechange.procon.org...[9] http://climatechange.procon.org... [10] http://climatechange.procon.org...[11] http://climatechange.procon.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-world-should-focus-on-climate-change-than-on-global-economy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.75

    climate: 13.39

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 5.51 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 9.08

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 2.96 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)

    real: 2.28

    premises: 2.03 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.25 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.34)
• CON

  I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only...

  Show full argument

  Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

  In conclusion the evidence is unmistakable. Everything points to the conclusion of anthropological global warming. With both graphs made from measured temperatures and from supercomputers performing trillions of calculations per second to simulate the physical laws governing the climate I have shown great evidence to support man made global warming. It has also been shown here that conspiracy theories are riddled throughout arguments provided by denialists. I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only appear in the long run on the order of centuries. Also that last graph did predict a fall in temperature quite accurately and it was CO2 centric.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.70

    climate: 17.07

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)

    change: 7.30

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)