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

PRO

  • PRO

    But that it is predominately (50% or more) human caused....

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

    Select winner. 2k. 2 weeks. == Definitions == Global warming: The average increase in temperatures since the late 19th century. Man-Made: The literal definition is fairly obvious. In terms of this debate, man-made factors to climate change would be the emission of greenhouse gasses. Or, as the IPCC would describe man-made forcing, "changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols)" [1]. To clarify "on balance", I am not arguing that climate change is entirely man made. But that it is predominately (50% or more) human caused. ==Structure== R1: Acceptance R2: Present case. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and conclusion == Some abbreviations == AGW -- Anthropogenic global warming [G]CR -- [galactic] cosmic rays TSI -- Total solar irradiation MWP -- Medieval warm period LIA -- Little ice age == Rules == 1. No forfeits 2. Nullifying the traditional rule 2 bsh uses. Sources can be put in outside links. For this topic I sometimes need the room :P 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. No semantics; debaters will adhere to the common/average understanding of the topic 8. The BOP is Shared; Pro must argue for independence and Con must argue against 9. Pro must present their case in round one 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss 1. http://www.grida.no...

  • PRO

    Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17...

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

    Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession and the U.s economy is struggling again.on the above round i mentioned that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? Sixty nine percent of homes built in last three years are still unsold;we can not be suprised because where there is no employment there is no money.go back and look on the primary sector of that country.the Greece's GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis peak.wow that is good you.GDP generally is defined as the market value of the goods and services produced by a country.one can ask him self that why one country can produce more products than the other country.i wonder why did Greece obtain such a less percent of GDP.it means that the primary sector of that country is not doing well.when we look such many things are manufactured from farming.the problem may be with the land nor the farmers.the Philippines is one of the countries that suffer the most from extreme weather events which exact a high death toll and economic losses.analyzing data from 1991 to 2010,germanwatch,a climate and development organization,said the Philippines ranked 10th among countries when it comes to exposure and responding to severe weather caused by climate change.all the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ,the study noted.aside from the philippines,there were Bangladesh,Burma,Honduras,Nicaragua,Haiti,Vietman,the Dominican republic,Pakhstan and north korea.what about these identified 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.this year's analysis underline that less developed countries are generally more affected than industrialized countries,according to the climate risk index.with regard to future climate ,the climate risk index can serve as a warning signal indicating past vulnerability which may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe through climate change.

  • PRO

    Thus, Scientists have no incentive to disprove climate...

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

    CO2 is a trace gas - 0. 04 % of the atmosphere is CO2. There isn't enough CO2 to effect anything. CO2 has the same properties as glass. Once you reach it's saturation point of around 80 parts per million you get very little and a rapid decrease in any further reflection of the infra red spectrum. The earth is not like a greenhouse. The Earth is more like a thermostat. It transfers hot and cold air. A greenhouse doesn't transfer hot and cold air. Thus, A thermostat is a self regulating system which maintains an even temperature. A greenhouse is an enclosed space which doesn't allow air to circulate and the space becomes hotter than what the exterior environment is. This all assuming that a hotter planet would be a bad place to live in which is another false assumption. Note- A hotter climate would be beneficial to all living plants and animals. Whereas a cooler climate would be a disaster because less sunlight and lower temperatures mean less shelter and food for all plants and animals. Thus, This highlights the utter stupidity of the climate alarmists whom assume that a warmer climate would lead to some kind of disaster. Note - All studies which show that humans are to blame for the climate changing contain false data and are produced by scientists that have hidden agendas. Note - Scientists need to create disasters so as to create jobs for themselves and to increase their income, Status and career prospects. Thus, Scientists have no incentive to disprove climate change because if they do, They will find themselves being blacklisted and out of work permanently. Thus, Scientists are glad to agree with climate change because it ensures their future and safeguards their reputations.

  • PRO

    The local weather may change but the global climate stays...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    The climate is not changing. The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organisation which has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organisation which has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the climate is changing. This person will most likely have a secret agenda which has nothing to do with climate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.95
      climate: 22.02
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 9.19 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 3.93
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • PRO

    The impact is clear. ... Thanks and please vote for the...

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

    AFF- I want to thank the oppoent for their time Honorable Judges Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Definitions First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies. Standard- The standard of today’s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate. 1. Adaptation Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today’s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to “adapt” to the effects of climate change. According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate. 2. Moral Obligation Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country’s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian). Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism: It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security. Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives. The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. 3. The Environment Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5°C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. The Impact is that if the Earth’s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late. Thanks and please vote for the Aff/Pro

  • PRO

    and I must admit in some respects we do need technology...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    In our current situation its hard to say only some species are at risk. This is impossible if you use technology and climate change as the reason for their decline. just like they cant make pesticides that target just one species of insect, what kills one kills (or damages) all. I like your airplane analogy because i cant agree more, honey bees are our canary in the coalmine. and I must admit in some respects we do need technology to solve the problem but not in the way most companies(monsanto) or people think. finding a new way to genetically modify seeds or developing new medications and pesticides is not the answer. In many ways in regards to bees/farming we need to go "back in time" and return to a less big business approach and go back to the way we used to do it. buying local is a big part of that. the technologies we need to invest in are ways to combat climate change and or better regulations for importing foods. Yes its true that alot of these people are still exploiting the environment, but alot of them are farmers and companies like monsanto have forced them to do things their way (literally, if you dont buy monsanto seeds they will lobby the grain buyers not to purchase your product) And inregards to the cell phone thing, I have not seen proof that cellphones cause any harm to bees at all

  • PRO

    Developed states have more available money to fight...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Developed states have more available money to fight climate change

  • PRO

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the...

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change

  • PRO

    I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of...

    Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

    I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change.

  • PRO

    As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue...

    Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

    Hello Woojin05. I accept your challenge and look forward to our debate and the rounds that will follow! Here we go... Global Warming is a reality, a problem and our fault. According to the Inquisitition of Climate Science, since 1800, 330 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide have been pumped into the atmosphere due to factories burning fossil fuels creating a "greenhouse effect," trapping sunlight, raising temperatures. This is also the cause for the largest global temperature increase mankind has ever encountered. According to the National Climatic Data Center, in the last century the average temperature has increased 1.33 degrees, and is projected to increase another 2.5-10.4 degrees by 21-hundred. The Institute for Demographic Research predicts that this temperature increase would raise ocean levels to the point where 634 million people living on the coast would be forced to re-locate. It is for this reason, that I support the resolution that Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue about who is in fact responsible for global warming. According to the World Resources Institue, "industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date". Industrialized countries. Not underdeveloped countries. There is additional evidence to support this. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide tend to stay in the atmosphere for decades. Old injuries dealt to the enviorment from now developed countries" haven"t healed yet. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the countries with the top annual carbon pollution per capita, are all industrialized and developed. Therefore it is developed countries that are responsible for global warming, and from the moral standpoint that this preposition wishes for us to take, it is developed countries who are responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change. It is essential to understand that climate change can be fixed. According to Royters, we have until 2040 to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible. There is a way to save our planet. However this solution is so obvious that it is often overlooked. Cutting pollution emissions by 80%, and replacing them with natural energy would literally halt the growth of climate change, which would end all effects of climate change. Admittedly, this solution comes with a high price tag. It could cost 1.9 trillion dollars annually to cut our carbon emissions by 80%. However this price tag is nothing compared to the cost of letting global warming continue. According to the Natural Resource Defense Council it is estimated that dealing with the effects of global warming would cost 20 trillion dollars a year by the end of the century, costing 10x more money than it would to just stop global warming. Each of the top 30 developed countries, have the budget to pay for approximently 4 % of the emissions decrease. This money could be funded by tax increases, charities, or budget cuts. In contrast there is mathematically no possible way of dealing with the effects of global warming without bankrupting the world"s economy. Now the logical question is: Why can"t developing countries assist in the costs of mitigating climate change? The answer is because they do not have the money. The average annual salary of a person living in a third world country is 730 dollars, or about 2 dollars a day. On top of this between 60-80% of this money is spent on food. There is no conceivable way a government could make money from taxing these people. As proof of this, the U.S."s national budget is around 2.1 trillion dollars per year, whereas Zimbobwae"s national budget is only 2.7 million dollars per year. Their budget is mathematically practically a millionth of the United States"s budget, and Zimbobwae is an average third world country. These countries need every penny they can make, therefore they cannot be obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change. It"s that simple. It is time to accept a reality and a responsibility. Therefore developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

CON

  • CON

    The warming of the earht is not unusual. ... If anything...

    Climate Shift

    Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says "the scientist say its right, so its right." Climate change models have been failing for years now. It was predicted that by 2013 there would benno polar ice left. In 2013 the ice capsnincreased massively. In fact, there was little polarnice in the 1930s, but the ice increased rapidly until the 80s when they started to shrink again. The warming of the earht is not unusual. The medieval warming period had heats hotter then the heat today. The little ice following it had tempatures far colder then today. This shows heat change is normal. In fact overall planet tempature has decrised since the 90s. The super hurricanes predicted by envirmentalist have not come. The hurricanes of the early 1900s were far stronger then today's. The hurricane that destroyed galvistonnis a good example. If anything shows the fallacy of climate change, it is the mound of failed environmentalists predictions.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.17
      climate: 20.33
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 7.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 4.84
      premises: 4.45 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • CON

    I cannot access this source. ... Kind Regards, I am...

    Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

    Kind Regards for you arguments. Also, I always back up my argument, otherwise it would be opinion and not a proper argument. Rebuttals and arguments: First and foremost I would like to refer to what I wrote in the comments, previous to Pro posting their statement. This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. As such I will simply quote myself, as to what I said in the comments: "I have studied agriculture, I know what effect agriculture has on the environment very well. However, the majority of agricultural problems arising are not simply from 'factory farming'. (And with that I mean environmental, not solely emission wise) But as for their sources, here's the list: http://www.cowspiracy.com...... I will analyse their sources on Greenhouse gases from top to bottom: 1.) I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and climate change, but only between Farming and Climate change. However, 'factory farming' makes up under 50% (around 40%) of animal related agriculture, and evidence suggests that non factory farmed animals produce more emission than 'factory farmed' animals, meaning that even they would have a higher emission than 'factory farming'. It is furthermore to state that the graph provided in round 1 is for the U.S, and it is to mention that the U.S. has one of the highest 'factory farming' sectors, with around 99% of agricultural animals held in the U.S. being held in 'factory farming' setting (https://www.aspca.org...). This would mean that, looking at above graph, factory farming most definitely is not the primary cause of man made global climate change. Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. Conclusion: This means that none of Pro's sources can be seen as evidence that Factory Farming is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.

  • CON

    I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    To conclude my case I would like to point out the obvious flaws in the opposition's previous case. They stated: "Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin." Once again I correct the affirmative on the correct wording of the topic. The topic of this debate is that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Throughout their entire case the affirmative seems to be referring to their fictional topic of: CO2 is the largest factor in global warming. The affirmative also stated that my evidence was backing this fictional topic. Whilst this may be true, proving that CO2 emissions are not the largest factor of global warming only adds to the overall proof that they are not directly responsible for the effects. To clear confusion, the definition of directly responsible is: without anyone or anything intervening. Whilst the affirmative continued to provide arguments proving the existence of CO2 emissions as the largest factor, they did not provide any points stating the absence of an intervention. There are many examples of other processes in our natural world that are speeding up the global warming. Some of these include methane emissions from cattle, deforestation and chemical fertilisers on crop lands. Although the affirmative believes that CO2 emissions play the largest role in heating the planet, they are not the sole reason behind the issue. If the impossible event of a CO2 emission cease occurred, the Earth would still be heating up. Slowly but surely, the effects of the Earth's orbit and the causes mentioned above will continue to heat the planet that we live on today. The affirmative also stated: "the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing." In theory, this phrase mentions the effects on sun rays on Earth. Incredulously, even these sun rays play a role in global warming and further diminish the affirmatives picture of CO2 emissions being directly responsible. In a surprising twist to the debate, the affirmative suddenly seems to understand the topic of the debate towards the end of their case and produces the statement below. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. "CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it." Cold hard evidence against the point brought up by the affirmative can be found in my first argument. Global warming is simply defined as increasing temperatures on our planet. Carbon dating and a myriad of other scientific tests show the heating and cooling of the planet well before the involvement of the Industrial Revolution. If the planet was heating up during Medieval periods, how can the affirmative say that CO2 is the cause of global warming when the people of the past had not even heard of the word carbon? In finality, I am not denying the fact that global warming exists. I am not denying that CO2 emissions play a considerable role in the heating of our planet. However, I do deny the views of the affirmative in thinking the CO2 emissions play a sole role in global warming. There are many other factors that are also contributing to the heating of our planet. In further expansion, I deny the politicians and organisational leaders within our world. The planet is heating up and it is effecting ecosystems and environments alike. Whilst we sit here and debate whether CO2 emissions are directly responsible, politicians all over the globe are doing the same. It is time to stop the debate and face the fact that although CO2 emissions have played a big role in global warming, the gradual heating of our planet is totally inevitable. As an international force we need to combat global warming and thus climate change by investigating new methods of adapting to a changing climate. Cooling down the Earth by reducing CO2 emissions is a false statement because the Earth will continue to heat via its natural cycles which we as humans would be wrong to alter. As the negative side, I strongly believe that CO2 emissions are not directly responsible for climate change. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.09
      climate: 15.05
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.04
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    In other words, this point was not refuted. ... You know...

    Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

    Correlations My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change. Arguing the correlation exists does not win the point, as I agree it exists, but the correlation is not strong enough to mean it is the “main” factor in climate change, therefore unless you prove the correlation is significantly high (like PDO) you cannot win this debate. And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph. The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data. Nearly all satellites show little to negative warming in the last decade. And, as stated, the correlation in the last decade was only 0.02. Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t. The correlation is therefore broken and the minute correlation shows human CO2 emissions likely cannot play a major role. My opponent continues global warming is a problem, I agree with him I never denied its existence, but we differ on whether CO2 is the driving factor. And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. And the suns correlation was higher by .10 R points. In other words, this point was not refuted. To the naked eye the graph is appealing, but to one that can actually read statistics presented in round two the correlation is extremely weak. So the facts show CO2 is not the main driver of climate. Examine my opponent’s graph. I made it easy: I suck at photo editing so I just threw on some paint. Every place I put a line is where correlation broke. Look at it. We see 3 – 4 (depending if you slur the first one together) areas where correlation fails! So even using my opponents eye appealing data, its flawed. And when you use the facts, its flawed. Either way, its apparent CO2 is not a main driver of climate. I also could have added even more as the rise in temperture in the 30s-40s was faster then CO2. So its another break in correlation. It's a very weak correlation is what it gets right down too. My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point. Other factors You are arguing the main factor in global warming is CO2, which you have failed to do. I offered many other factors, which together can explain for all of the warming, occurred. This is blatantly obvious. I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. Clarification was not needed, at all. I have shown CO2 logically based on science is not the [main] driver of climate and that other natural forgings are much stronger then man-made emissions. In reality, I extend arguments here as you have failed to prove that the PDO, with a stronger correlation, cannot account for the warming or the sun, with a stronger correlation and as the only heat source of our planet could not cause the majority of this warming. My opponent’s case My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate. Conclusion: I have done a few things: Proven a CO2 correlation is extremely weak, and the correlation it has is not sufficient to prove it’s the main factor in the current climate I have shown, using my opponents data nonetheless, that the correlation is not as perfect as he makes it out to be and that the correlation in the last decade is almost zero – in other words no match at all. I have shown natural forgings have correlations sometimes of over twice the amount of CO2, and that this means it is likely a larger player in climate then CO2 is. Basically in sum: the debate is over whether or not CO2 is the main factor in the current warming, and my opponent has failed to prove it is the main factor, and has failed to prove why natural forgings cannot explain the rise. In that case, by logic, Con wins. You know and my opponent having the BOP and not having a case… that means I just win by default as he has not fulfilled his burden.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.02
      climate: 16.07
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 8.94
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

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

    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...

  • CON

    And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty. Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates. Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.98
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 9.63
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
  • CON

    I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of...

    Climate Shift

    Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.96
      climate: 21.32
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.47 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 3.64
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    This is a major point that needs to be discussed. ......

    The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

    Yes I did read your link (http://www.epa.gov...). I read the way the EPA stated "As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of 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." I surely do not want to go back and forth on this point, but the EPA article that you continue referring to specifically states that it is unknown what contributions the human activity has to climate change. 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. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) 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. The emails show how scientists have been altering climate date and hiding information which proves global warming caused by man to be false. These emails included some from American Scientist John Holdren, a top adviser to the president and he wrote that scientists who opposed the theories of climate change were "amateurs." He referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide and decline" temperature figures. Yet another mentioned how he was bothered to release date that could challenge climate change. (http://climategateemail.com...) (http://www.eastangliaemails.com...) In Terms of the NASA link you posted, yes I agree they said there was record melting in 2008. This is a major point that needs to be discussed. 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. For some reason, global warming supporters find a year or two or three to be sufficient enough to produce a trend of warmth. 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? 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." There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist. There are questions of the EPA suppressing evidence of their finding. The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change. 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. I didn't expect to have to continue showing all this information on how global warming is yet to be proven and how your EPA records are more under question and uncertain than your statements represent. As we all know, the earth has been warming and cooling since its existence. There was an Ice Age about 22,000 years ago, then the earth warmed for a bit and started to cool again for the Little Ice Age which began warming again around 1680. There was no proof or even reason to believe the earth was cooling and heating for all those years due to carbon gases from humans. (http://canadafreepress.com...) This is where the "Hockey Stick" graph makes its entrance, around 1998. For those who are not familiar with this, it is a climate graph which is one of the initial pieces of information to start the global warming hysteria. This graph mapped out a zero increase in temperature over the past 1,000 years with a sudden spike starting in the 20th century. The research which produced this used tree ring data for the first 1,000 years of its study and then added modern temperature date for the 20th century. These tree rings were hand picked and often discarded if they did not conform to the uniformity as the others did. A dendroclimatologist (one who studies climate using tree rings) told the US Congressional Committee that, "...this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology." This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The hockey stick was eventually unmasked by one of the most basic forms of scientific testing we know today; the reproducibility test. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick attempted to reproduce this hockey stick and were unable to do so. They even requested date and formulas from Mann (the person who came up with the hockey stick in 1998) and he would not disclose the codes and formulas he used to achieve his results. This raised even more suspicion since the hockey stick was published work and the methods as to how the results were found were not being disclosed. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The US National Academy of Sciences appointed a committee to investigate this matter between McIntyre/McKitrick and Mann. Ultimately, they found in favor of McIntyre and McKitrick. They explained that they tried to reproduce the date themselves and while they could not reproduce the hockey stick Mann has suggested, they were able to reproduce the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick. (http://canadafreepress.com...) To date, Mann still refuses to disclose his formula and codes; very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today.

  • CON

    Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    The climate is changing, And I will argue this point from a geologic/anthropological perspective in the coming rounds. Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. Your discounting of authority is irrelevant to me. With this being said, I will save my arguments for climate change for the coming round. Round structure wasn't specified and I assume it's ok since you're doing the same thing.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.90
      climate: 20.97
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 3.93
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

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

    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.