args

PRO

• PRO

  This will not only kill people but also severely impact...

  Show full argument

  Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

  The governments of the world need to wake up to the reality of man made global warming which is leading to climate change. The planet is getting hotter every decade and this is leading to more radical and extreme weather patterns. This is and will continue to bring about more droughts, More flooding, More storms and more natural disasters. This will not only kill people but also severely impact economies and put our societies at grave risk. 97 percent of the scientific community and all scientific authorities support the theory of man-made climate change. Therefore we must trust our scientists and the overwhelming body of evidence and take action to reduce emissions. We can use more renweable energy, Ban certain exhaust fumes, Eventually ban diesel cars, Put into place taxes on carbon and have stricter environmental controls. This will help to reduce our cause of global warming and thus is a necessary and workable solution to this very grave threat. Good luck to my opponent.

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

    BM25 score: 24.85

    climate: 14.77

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

    premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)

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

    change: 9.84

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

    premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)

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

  To conclude then, It has been duly proved throughout the...

  Show full argument

  Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.

  To conclude then, It has been duly proved throughout the whole debate that picking boogers indeed has a positive impact on our environment, On a global scale even as there are 7 + billions with a b beautiful booger picking souls out there who do nothing but help improving the climate on planet earth every time a booger bites the dust. A booger picking man Said "I have a plan" If we all just join in There will be so much win Climate saving it can

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Picking-boogers-can-help-reverse-climate-change./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.78

    climate: 17.29

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

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.12 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.88)

    change: 7.25

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

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.64)
• PRO

  To paraphrase George Orwell, Anthropogenic carbon dioxide...

  Show full argument

  The climate is not "a changing".

  Reference - Watts up With That? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide. Extract - The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0. 03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0. 43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming. The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, Anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, Much more equal. Co2 is irrelevant when considering global temperature. This is because the Earth doesn't act like a green house to begin with. The Earth is an open system which is not enclosed like a green house. Thus, Using the term 'green house' to describe climate is deceptive and misleading. The Earth is open system which can cool itself by using cold air from the Artic and Antarctic regions. Thus, The Earth acts like a thermostat and not like a green house. Thus, Even if CO2 did cause some increase in temperature, This would cause extra updraft which would cause extra cloud formation and suck in cold air from the artic or antarctic regions. Thus, The climate would be able to self regulate itself by shifting air currents and cloud formation. CO2's saturation is logarithmic and its temperature influence deminishes drastically with concentrations over 80ppm. Note - 50% of saturation occurs in the first 20ppm. Thus, Doubling CO2 does not double temperature. In fact, Temperature inreases after 80ppm are so small they are really not worth recording. But, That doesn't stop climate change scientists trying to drum up climate change hysteria by providing false information and shonky numbers. Quote - There are several islands that have just completely disappeared in Micronesia. Yeah, Maybe you are right. These islands exist on the Rim of Fire where islands come and go on a regular basis. This area is highly unstable and has regular earthquakes and land shifts. But, As my last post reference said "A new study of over 700 islands for decades shows that even though seas are rising faster than any time in the last million years, Somehow no islands with people on are shrinking. This means there are no climate change refugees from any vanishing island. Plus it"s more proof that highly adjusted satellite data is recording sea levels on some other planet. " Thus, I think you we can safely say that my opponents argument has been completely refuted.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.69

    climate: 20.55

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

    premises: 7.72 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.61)

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

    change: 3.89

    premises: 3.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.37)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
• PRO

  If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an...

  Show full argument

  97% of Climate Scientists Don't Actually Agree

  Just about every time a debate begins anywhere on the topic of climate change, you will hear the statistic "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused my human induced pollution". Well, that settles it right? There is no way that 97% of climate scientists could all be wrong? Using this, we should all be able to agree that it is time to focus on climate change and accept that it is our fault and we can stop it right? Well, no. I've started this debate to clarify that the 97% statistic is very misleading and used for the wrong purposes. Let it be known to my opponent and voters that this is not a general climate change debate, but simply a debate on this number alone. Please remain on this topic. Now, let me start by talking about the primary topic of this debate, the 97% statistic. And you've probably heard this before, but what exactly do they agree on? If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an alarming and dangerous rate, then why question it, but my sources say that they say no more then point out a slight warming trend of about 0.8 degrees over the past century. So if this is the only statistic they all agree on, then how do you justify using this statistic to justify government funded organisations as big as the EPA or other environmental protection programs. you can't It has also been proven that in most cases of any percentage of 90+ in cases of climate change are almost always do to poor studies. For instance John Cook came up with a study in 2012 that stated "97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming and human activity is the main cause" Well, it turns out that most of his papers never actually stated any such thing. He in fact created a category which he believed the prior statement was implied, but never stated, which we can all agree can be considered as malpractice. It also turns out that 3 scientists,Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Nichola Scafetta, and Dr. Richard Tol, whose papers where included all said that there papers where never supposed to be used in any such way. So, based on my arguments, I believe it is safe to say that until an accurate study is conducted stating that climate scientists agree that Climate change is real and that humans are the primary cause we can not use any such statistic to convince the public to take unnecessary actions to resolve a problem that we know little about the magnitude and possible consequences of, not to mention the fact that they haven't even confirmed that there is even something we can do to stop it.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/97-of-Climate-Scientists-Dont-Actually-Agree/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.69

    climate: 17.84

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

    premises: 8.59 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)

    change: 4.51

    premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)

    real: 2.33

    premises: 2.03 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.64)
• PRO

  This is like comparing a incandescent light bulb to a CFL...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic global climate change.

  Round four defense Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is unsaturated. III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. IV. Temperature is increasing. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. VI. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Fact: The scientific consensus used very high standards including being based upon a consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity. The climate scientists' findings were published in scholarly peer reviewed journals. Myth 1: The scientific consensus is an ad populum fallacy. Fallacy 1: The fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. People misuse fallacies all the time. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Wouldn't it be cool if you said "I am a millionaire" and it came true? "Scientific consensus What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population? There are two significant differences: Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth. Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.) " [17] Myth 2: The scientific consensus is groupthink. Fallacy 2: Misrepresentation, comparing past scientific consensus to present fails to take into account that today's standards are more robust than standards decades ago. This is like comparing a incandescent light bulb to a CFL (compact fluoride lamp) light bulb and claiming, the incandescent light bulb is an energy hog, therefore the CFL is an energy hog too. This is also jumping to conclusions. II. Co2 is unsaturated. Fact: Co2 is nowhere near saturation point. Co2 has been much higher in the past with much higher temperatures. Venus has much higher Co2 and has much higher temperatures. Myth: Co2 is saturated. Fallacy: Oversimplification. The height of which heat is escaping is rising. Meaning more heat is getting trapped in the lower atmosphere. Focusing solely on the air temperature absorption is missing the bigger picture that more air is getting warmed. The amount of heat escaping to space is decreasing. Think of your house, you can increase the heat by turning up the furnace or by better insulating your house. [18] Picture here: III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. Fact: Co2 increase greenhouse warming. More heat means higher evaporation rates due to molecules breaking surface tension easier when excited. Myth: There evaporation rate has not increased therefore heat has not increased. Fallacy: Cherry picking most likely. My opponent does not tell how he/she got the graph in figure three. Is this worldwide or over a single location? Some areas will become wetter while others drier due to changes in the climate. Since the vast majority of the Earth is Ocean, it is safe to say evaporation rates have increased. Again, my opponent's argument and graph is too vague for me to fully address. Another possibility is my opponent is measuring the ocean's height. In that case water that is warmer expands. My opponent is asking me to stab in the dark because he/she failed to make a clear argument. IV. Temperature is increasing. Fact: Temperature increasing is a well established fact. From direct measurements including weather stations to indirect measurements including Co2 rising, sea level rise, more heat waves and more intense heat waves, less hurricanes but stronger hurricanes, higher humidity, and many more indicators. Myth: Temperature is not increasing. Fallacy: Misrepresentation. First, figure 4 provides supporting evidence for my side of the debate. The overall trend is upwards. The problem with raw data without a trend line is it is difficult to detect the overall upwards trend in temperature. As anyone can see in figure 4 the highest temperature is past 2010. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. Fact: Science is a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is the reason why there is the scientific method and peer review journals. Science is the polar opposite of blind faith. This is calling black white instead of black. Myth: Science is blind faith. Fallacy: Appeal to emotion fallacy comparing science to religion. The idea is to give the audience a cheap jolt and hope they remember the myth. VI. Sources 17. http://rationalwiki.org... 18. https://skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.65

    climate: 15.37

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.98 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 9.16

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

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

  Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the...

  Show full argument

  "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

  ===== Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE ---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate ===== End DISCLAIMER ===== 1 ========= My Argument #1 Many people think that the climate choices are: A) fix the climate, Or B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE. In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices: B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? ) If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets. If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let's call these incremental costs "P"). If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let's call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs. Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q. 2 ========= Defining the CATASTROPHE When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. Please be as specific as you can: number of degrees of extra heat, Inches of ocean rise, Number of climate-related deaths, Etc. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate. (1) The link is not working, The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Fixing-the-Climate-should-be-a-Low-Priority-for-the-USA/4/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.64

    climate: 17.44

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

    premises: 8.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 3.63

    premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)

    real: 3.57

    premises: 3.31 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)
• PRO

  Thank you jwesbruce.well we can not stop climate change...

  Show full argument

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

  Thank you jwesbruce.well we can not stop climate change but we can reduce it.i find it useless to focus on the economy than on the world am living on it.jwesbruce you said that climate change cannot be stopped its a perpetual process....what we can have control on is our well being.you will never be healthy if the world around you is affected.thats so lame to take economy as a first thing because what sustain the economy is the primary sector of the economy.we can reduce climate change.what if you can replace a regular light bulb with a compact fluerescen one?that saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.walk,bike,carpool,take mass transit,and or trhp chain.all of these things can help reduce gas consumption and one pound of carbon dioxide for each mile you do not drive.*use less hot water*it takes a lot of energy to heat water.reducing the amount used means big savings in not only your energy bills,but also in carbon dioxide emissions.using cold water for your wash saves 500 pounds of carbon dioxide a year,and using a low flow showerhead reduces 350 pounds of carbon dioxide.we have much power to take care of the world you are living on it.is it a hard thing to plant a tree?a single tree can absorb one ton of carbon dioxide a year.

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

    BM25 score: 24.59

    climate: 14.96

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

    premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)

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

    change: 9.39

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

    premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)

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

  It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate...

  Show full argument

  The sun drives the global climate

  It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D

  • https://debatewise.org/debates/1757-man-made-climate-change-is-a-myth/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.56

    climate: 20.63

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.20 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)

    change: 3.66

    premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
• PRO

  Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  Round 3 Rebuttals "Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now?" RonPaulConservative Do you have any proof that the general scientific consensus was that the Earth used to be flat? This is a bare assertion fallacy without any outside sources, only true because you say it is true. A counter proposal is that the masses were mesmerized by religious dogma that made them believe the Earth was flat. ""that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" "He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)" "for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)" "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)" " [0] As you can see the Old Testament clearly promotes the idea of a flat Earth. The Old Testament is religious doctrine as opposed to scientific. Meanwhile, early philosophers/scientist proposed and announced the Earth was spherical in shape. "It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!" [1] Therefore, scientists have never claimed the Earth was flat, and instead religious doctrines and leaders have promoted the idea of a flat Earth. "Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " RonPaulConservative Please use spell check. The 70's cooling trend was due to sulfur aerosol forcing. By the very nature of science a hypothesis can be dis proven and adjusted accordingly, this flexibility is the greatest strength of science as opposed to unyielding faith based doctrine. "The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg - less radiation reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80's, the trend reversed and radiation levels at the Earth's surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80's, the cooling effect from aerosols was masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling ended, the current global warming trend began." [2] "From the mid-1990s the sub-thermocline southern Indian Ocean experienced a rapid temperature trend reversal. Here we show, using climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, that the late twentieth century sub-thermocline cooling of the southern Indian Ocean was primarily driven by increasing anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. " [3] As you can see man-made aerosols caused the cooling trend. "Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. " RonPaulConservative Many predictions were wrong, but this is how science works, a scientist makes a prediction, then sees if it is correct or incorrect and adjusts accordingly. Each prediction becoming more and more accurate. "None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. " RonPaulConservative While it is true that there has been cooling and warming periods in the past, this is a red herring. The rapid rate of Co2 accumulation and temperature change has been correlated with catastrophic events in the past. [9] There is no evidence that the warming trend will decrease. You have shown no evidence that a natural event is causing the current warming trend. "In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. " RonPaulConservative This seems blatantly false, global temperatures are rising and have been rising. [4] "Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." [4] Also, you choose Newsmax as your source which is about as non-credible as source as you can get. [5] "NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site." [5] "RIGHT BIAS These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [6] Newsmax.com has almost an extreme right bias. "This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. " RonPaulConservative The Antarctic ice sheets are shrinking. "The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass." [7] "Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2" RonPaulConservative A small amount of Co2 can cause large increases in temperature due to the amplification effect, also known as postive feedback cycle. "In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [8] "The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative That may not seem a lot to you but .6 degrees Celsius is quite a lot in 120 years. The problem is not the temperature increase itself, but the rapid rate of change that will shock the Earth's ecosystems. Finally, Co2 levels continue to rise dramatically. [9] There should be no doubt that I destroyed my opponent's round two argument. Showing the statements to be blatantly false, red herrings, and/or from bias sources. Sources 0. http://www.answering-christianity.com... 1. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... 2. https://skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.nature.com... 4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com... 5. http://www.sourcewatch.org... 6. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.56

    climate: 13.13

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 11.29

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
• PRO

  All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors...

  Show full argument

  Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

  Climate change is a real and threatening danger. Uptake in sever weather, natural disasters, stagnant food production, dwindling water resources, melting polar caps and glaciers, and extinction of animals, insects, coral that depend on specific temperatures to survive. It is a danger that has been scientifically linked to excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays from the sun that should be reflected back into space and the heat and carbon from our own industrial complexes trapped under the layer they created.. Critics say that the Earth has experience climate change before during times that modern humans were not even alive and therefor human activity can not be causing climate change, even if it exists. But look at what CAUSES climate change. Excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays. In the past this was created by volcanic activity, run away continent wide wildfires, and a massive meter impact throwing millions of tons of dust, dirts, smoke/carbon, and greenhouses gases into the air, blocking out the sun to where very little light reach the Earths surface to heat it and causing an ice age. Critics say that if we ARE having climate change why are we not getting colder then ? Because once those events happened, they ended. Once all the trees were burned down, there was nothing to burn, once the volcano released all its pressure and stopped erupting, no more heat and carbon/greenhouse gases that trap heat were being produced. There was only one big meteor, one big explosion that created a layer of carbon and greenhouse gases that enveloped the whole world.. Imagine that layer is a house. All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors locked shut, and the heater is set at 90degrees and the stove is on medium heat, going for hours on end. There maybe a few leaks here and there but all in all the house soon becomes unbearably hot and stuffy. You turn off the stove and heater so it won't get any hotter and eventually the house cools because of the leaks. May take a very long time but it happens. Now imagine instead of turning off the heater and stove, you leave them as they are or ,being generous, turn them down a bit BUT not a lot and they are still going strong for hours and hours. Imagine you add a roommate that has their own heater and stove going as well, and then another, and then another, so on and so forth. The house becomes unbearably hot even faster with each new addition. Even if all of you turned down the heaters and stoves down to the BARE MINIMUM NEEDED TO SURVIVE, with all of the trapped heat from before, the added people adding their own heat/emissions on top of that, the heat will not dissipate before you all die of heat stroke, starvation cause no food plants can grow in such hot and water parched conditions, or oxygen deprivation cause their are no plants to turn the heat and exhale ( carbon emissions) into breathable air. Humans are highly adaptable and we could probably hold out for a few generations after the collapse of the earths ecosystem but eventually we to would have to adapt or perish. So why wait till a bottom of the barrel crisis before enforcing laws and society norms that control our population rise ALONG with strategies to curb and reduce our resource guzzling ways ? It has been scientifically tested and projected by many scientists that Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. Right now we are a bit above 7 billion and grow by about a 200,000 a year. One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed." According to population biologist Joel Cohen of Columbia University, other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity are the nitrogen cycle, available quantities of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and many other systems work together, all interwoven to create and sustain life on Earth. Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote. The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually UNDER OPTIMUM SUSTAINED CLIMATE AND WEATHER, something that is slowly becoming rare around the world. But pushing that point aside, thats enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion omnivores under US standards of consumption, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned if EVERYONE became vegetarians. But because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, so the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion and be more around 8 or 9 billion. OH wait .... We are already almost there ! and the world population is expected to hit 8 billion by 2024. Our bulging population not only threatens us but every living thing on planet Earth. Population control methods MUST be part of ALL climate change, sustainable resource, and green funding policies. A grain of sand my seem tiny but added together they become a huge desert that can swallow us whole.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Population-control-MUST-be-part-of-climate-change-sustainable-policies/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.38

    climate: 13.96

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

    premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)

    sourceText: 1.16 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.95)

    change: 9.20

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

    premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.95)

    real: 1.22

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)