Pro vs. con view
Topic space view"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
The idea that some countries are more to blame than others for causing global climate change may be true, but it distracts from the more important and just cause, which is for the world to come together to solve the problem.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent is correct the Earth's temperature has been hotter a long time ago. This falls into the stage 4a of climate change denial. [2] Meaning my opponent accepts the first part of the resolution but rejects the second half. The problem is not the temperature itself, but the rate of change. High rate of temperature change historically has lead to mass extinction. In summary, species including humans will struggle to adapt to such changes, if adaptation to such a change is even possible. [3] Impact, high rate of temperature change equals mass extinctions, which are a threat. Next my opponent uses information sourced from an ultra conservative website called the dailycaller.com I will first attack the source of the argument and then the argument itself. The dailycaller is an ultra-conservative website. You can verify this yourself by seeing the news story against Hilary placed first on the dailycaller.com. "ultra-conservative Daily Caller" [4] Next, lets take a look at the argument. Basically this is a reiteration of the first argument and again falls into stage 4a of denial. [2] Yes, not all the predictions came true. Yet, the overall premise, that co2 and temperature are rising an alarming rates is true. Thank you for taking the time to debate. I think it takes real courage to speak what you perceive is the truth against the majority. Sources. 2. http://grist.org... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://www.newscorpse.com...
Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosophers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigating the effects of climate change is necessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that "The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; "Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; "The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. Now onto my opponents case. His first part of his case talks about the term for developed countries being to broad, but yet offered a definition for it that narrows it down to the most developed. to counter this is will offer 5 of the most developed countries that I will be basing my arguments off of for this debate. 1. Norway 2. Australia 3. Netherlands 4. United States 5. New Zealand Now onto my opponents first contention, his first contention only talks about the cost, yet cooling the ocean floor they average will only cost about 14 billion dollars and make 30 billion dollars back in agriculture growth. His second contention then talks about how climate change is uncontrollable, once again you can go back to the fact that cooling the ocean floor or simply reducing are CO2 intake will drastically decrease the weather. his 3rd contention talks about how the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation where he talks about how Norway is in debt almost $644.5 billion dollars, this is just giving us more of a reason to put this into place. Not only will we save money from this but we will also stop the temperatures from causing anymore mass destruction. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries. I would also like to mention that the temperatures in afghanistan reached almsot 145 degrees over this last summer, for are soldiers that type of weather is hard to bare. Their temperatures have been increasing over 11% every year now for the last 3 years, this amount of increase could lead to world destruction by the year 2018. the time is now to take action.
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
Warming is beneficial Con does not dispute that warming is beneficial, and claims that what should be of concern is the rate of warming. Con offers no evidence that the rate of warming is important, he merely asserts that it is. Global temperature records have only been kept for about 130 years. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Before that, temperature reconstructions are so coarse and uncertain that a claim about rates is pure speculation. Con's source for the speculation is a journalist without scientific credentials. The EPA, referencing the IPCC, contradicts Con explicitly. “Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age.” [16. http://www.epa.gov... ] Con claims that in the past, changes in CO2 were always biogenic and slow. He offers no evidence of that (e.g. volcanoes), and it's irrelevant. He didn't claim harm from rapid CO2 change, only temperature change. Con says he does not believe plants are relatively starved for CO2. My assertion was supported by a reference giving hundreds of studies proving my point, whether it's from evolution or not. A table of experiments in which CO2 levels are artificially increased by about 75% shows that growth usually increases by 25% to 50%. [17. http://www.co2science.org... ] It's only been 11,000 years since the last ice age. The time scale of plant evolution is millions of years, not thousands. [18. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Those who make the climate models agree they failed. "... articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability." [19. http://online.wsj.com... There are four main sources of global temperature data, two from satellites and two from ground stations. Three of the four agree that the last decade has shown cooling. The outlier is NASA, who keeps adjusting past data to make the world warmer. The satellite data is far more trustworthy because is doesn't suffer from a lack of stations in remote areas and it doesn't suffer from the excess warmth of heat islands in developed areas. The satellites show cooling as does the HADCru data compiled in England. Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the decade trend. The summer of 2009 was the coldest on record [20. http://www.prisonplanet.com... ] Since global temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, we would expect recent years to be among the warmest. Nonetheless, temperatures are way below what the CO2 climate models predict, so the models are invalid. The reference plotted the original data sources, and whether the site is biased or not, the data correctly shows the models were invalid. The story of an anomalous year works for a year of two, but not for a whole decade, especially when climate crisis advocates have claimed that they have accounted for everything that could possibly affect climate, Hansen's predictions are wildly at odds with the IPCC report and climate models, which are now known to be too extreme. Hansen says the oceans will rise by 25 meters, while the IPCC says nine inches. Temperatures have risen at the rate of about 1 degree per hundred years until now, so we are seeing the record highs for the hundred years. However, 1 degree per hundred years is not a problem either by temperature directly or rate of increase. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. I claimed that restrictions on fossil fuel usage in the US would have little effect. Con did not dispute my claim. If we make no policy decisions to cut our CO2 emissions, we'll drop from the present 18% of world emissions to less than 5%. Con says that while the restrictions are pointless from any practical viewpoint, Con says we should do it so we can proclaim how great we are. If it didn't cost anything, that might be nice, but it costs a whole lot. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Con appears to agree that an expense of $25 trillions or so in the US could lower the earth's temperature by only 0.026 degree. A reduction of only 0.026 is pointless, so clearly it is no grounds for being a policy objective. Con argues that we should aim for more modest cuts. Why, if dramatic cuts have no useful effect? EPA mandates recently imposed will cost $78 billion per year for the next 90 years. That's $7 trillion spread over the 90 years. In return, according to the EPA analysis, the earth's temperature will be reduced by 0.00375° C. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That is not measurable. We should not spend large sums to achieve a result that is not measurable. By comparison, $15.6 billion was spent on AIDS research in a recent year, a shortfall of $7.7 billion. [21. http://www.avert.org... ] There is no justifications for a policy that spends $78 billion on a result that cannot even be detected if successful while the money is much better spent on things that do measurable good. Con ignored the lost opportunity costs. The US has a critical dependence on foreign oil and badly needs jobs and tax revenues. Yet, over $300 trillion in energy reserves are locked away for no reason other than fear of CO2. The government gets about 40% of oil profits directly in taxes, and more from the incomes of employees in the energy business. Our deficit is about $15 trillion and the economy is a disaster. We need the revenue. 5. Con claims consensus Skeptics of CO2 crisis have long agreed global temperatures are rising. However, climate models predicting things like a six degree rise by 2010 are disproved. Con seems to agree that policies of inhibiting CO2 will cost trillions of dollars and have no practical effect. Statements of imminent danger do not change the basic fact that policies to suppress CO2 in the US are destroying the economy by draining resources and fostering foreign dependence, while having no measurable effect on climate. Scientists have no special authority to claim that pointless policies should be instituted. A far better approach is to allowi economic growth and use the prosperity to adapt to climate change, regardless of what causes climate change. Prosperity can support things like water projects that make a real difference in food production. That will have a much larger effect than a degree or two of warming. We should also continue research on climate. Climate engineering solutions have been offered than would artificially reduce world temperatures at relatively low cost. [22. http://www.usatoday.com... ] The objection to climate engineering is that climate is so poorly understood that the effects cannot be assessed. That claim is odd, since CO2 crisis claims involve climate being completely understood. The crisis advocates are on to something this time; climate is not well understood. Con tried a character attack on all MIT climate scientists, Calling them “nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists.” Con didn't respond to the reasons for the new effort. Even the biased Wikipedia came up with a list of 75 reputable climate scientists skeptical of CO2 crisis. [23. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The resolution is affirmed.
Wrong to fight climate change through environment-damaging nuclear.
It is true that nuclear energy is 0-emission in its inherent processes, but it is wrong to sacrifice one environmental principle (local ecosystems and human safety) in order to push another (climate change).
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thank you opponent My opponent has two main arguments and I will refute them both and show how I win this debate. 1. Their first main argument is that developing countries should have the moral obligation as well This is wrong because 1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation 2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating. 3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related. 2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. 3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. Also, a citizen of a developed country represents a developed country because if you leave the USA during lets say World War 2. If you get arrested, in Germany, you probably were arrested because you were American (no racial/ethnic discrimination intended) Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention. If anyone (judge/judges or opponent) wants any evidence sites from my case, just ask. Thanks you for your time, opponent and judge/judges Please vote for the pro/aff
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.
I am strongly in favor of the motion that developed countries are obliged to give aid to developing countries in the fight against climate change. We need change in the economy all around the world independent of where it is working, in order to have any chance of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants to a level that results in a conservation of our planet for later generations. The contributing factors to these emissions have to be tackled and therefore they first have to be differentiated. We have the contribution of developed countries like the US and the states of Europe which is huge and besides the contribution of China one of the major problems which need attendants. The thing is that in these countries we have sufficient technological advances and also an economy that is capable of switching over to a sustainable economy. This is obviously not an easy task and needs both incentives and requires a great amount of recourses to enable this change, but even if it is done the problem is, that such a change is absolutely futile, if it isn"t coupled with a similar change in developing countries. And here we have to differentiate again between countries like China which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the moment, but has a working economy which is able to pay for such a change and has also the incentives to create the change, and the other developing countries just barely beginning to build an economy that is competitive and where the technological advances as well as the technological knowhow just lacks. While the first category is one of the most influential in a fight against climate change, we have good reason to hope, that with the right incentives in the developed world and the increasing change to a sustainable economy there, it will lead to a change in the economy as they need to stay in the market and in the technological race. The major problem, that the developed world can"t change with its own action without the use of direct financial and material aid, is in the last case of the countries just beginning to industrialize into having economies that are competitive. In these cases we have an economy that needs mostly a fast rate of growth and that is also growing fast already. The thing is that for a fast growth you need cheap energy and at the moment coal or gas are still the cheapest way of obtaining energy. Therefore those countries with a weak economy won"t care about whether or not the energy they use is sustainable or friendly to the environment, but they will just use them, as they have no incentive to change their behavior. This will be happening especially due to the fact that they feel to have the right to use those sources of energy similar to us as we have used them for a long time, making us the main contributors to global warming. They feel it is their good right also to use their resources to grow their economy. Sadly we can"t allow them to do that because if every developing country were allowed to use as much and as long those energy sources as we have, the environment would be damaged beyond repair as well as for all future generations. Therefore we have to prevent them from using these energy sources even though they rightly have the feeling that it is their good right to use them just as much as we did. We therefore need incentives. One is given by nature in reaction to the destruction of our environment and climate change, as it is especially affecting those countries in development. As this isn"t sufficient we have to give the other part of the incentive which can be nothing but financial aid in order to pay for them to build a sustainable economy helping our climate. We can"t not do it, because else all our work in our own economy is not helping as other developing countries with the growing economy due to them being able to produce cheaper with the cheaper energy, will just emit even more bringing no net benefit. To your points. Firstly you say that it is futile to help them, as there won"t be sufficient progress. While I have to agree that the progress is not enough, I have to answer that it isn"t enough anywhere in the world. In order to bring about bigger effects in their industry, leading to better results for our climate it takes even more incentive and especially cheaper technology in order for them to use it. The problem is that we cannot say that, because we haven"t changed everything and our work hasn"t been as efficient, we will stop the effort as any action against global warming in our industry is absolutely dependent upon the success even if gradually as it else destroys once more all our progress. Your second point seems to be more in favor of aid going to the developing countries. While they are increasingly dependent upon the aid as their economy is weak we have the problem that withdrawing financial aid, won"t benefit their economy. They would still be dependent upon the aid but just wouldn"t get it, leading to their economy breaking down. The problem is that their economy isn"t competitive if compared to the developed world and they won"t be able to grow or device better technology in order to increase the stability of their economy. The only thing they can do is produce things cheaper, which is done by exploiting workers and using cheap energy leading to climate change. Therefore the reduction of aid won"t bring a strong economy in those countries, but rather a collapse leading to even more use of cheap energy affecting our climate. Therefore we need to strengthen our financial aid for those countries in order for their economy to work on a sustainable basis. Now to your last point. While it is true that developed countries having more money and more impact also have to work with other problems, I don"t agree with your conclusion that they therefore can"t afford this help. Less developed countries spend less in total, but they are also poorer. You have to look at it in light of what their financial power is and in this respect you will see that developing countries actually have even less to spend on it and still do so. The developed countries such as the US or the states of Europe use much of their financial power on other issues which are important, but they not just should but have to have and take the resources in order to fight climate change. This is because firstly they themselves have lived upon our environment destroying it up to a great extend and therefore have a duty to pay to other countries if they don"t want them to do the same what they would have every right to. Secondly because they have the greatest financial power they have again the duty to pay the most for a problem that has to be solved for the whole world. It is also absolutely necessary as else all money spend on preventing climate change is wasted, as it won"t have any effect. Therefore we have to pay it in order to actually use our money. For those reasons I conclude that it is absolutely vital that the developed countries keep up their support and also increase it.
CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.
I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.
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. Negative thinks I only believe CO2 is speeding up the process of climate change. It most definitely is, and they are not mistaken in that. But not only is it speeding up and forcing climate change to continue, it is the main factor in this. No matter what my opponent may think, my evidence clearly showed CO2 is the largest threat. Greenhouse gases are proven to be the largest contributor to global warming, and CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas. And according to the World Meteorological Organization, the US Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the European Commission and thousands of scientists, CO2 is the largest factor. Negative may say that fluctuations in the earths orbit are the largest cause. To say that fluctuations in earths orbit are the largest cause is a bold statement. I think that by orbit fluctuations, he means that it causes Suns rays to hit the earth more. But according to NASA, solar maxima is only .1 percent higher than solar minima on average. To further my counter argument, if there had been an increase in solar output, both the stratosphere and troposphere would have warmed up. But instead, patterns show that the stratosphere has actually cooled. Meanwhile, land and the troposphere have been warming, which is no doubt due to greenhouse gases (particularly CO2). This shows that fluctuations in earths orbit, although drastically climate changing when they occur, are not occurring right now. However, the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing. Not because of orbit fluctuation, but because of greenhouse gases that trap the Suns heat. CO2 is directly responsible for global warming today. In the earlier graph, I showed how carbon emissions have increased drastically since the industrial revolution. I then linked a graph that showed temperature increase over the same time period. The fact is, since the industrial revolution, temperatures have drastically increased at a rate that would never have occurred without coal burning and that whole era. So CO2 emission IS directly responsible for global warming. The negative, in their conclusion, called my points invalid. I say the exact opposite. I stand by my points, and the facts that went with it. I most surely do not agree that their case is correct. I have just shown why their case is completely wrong. 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. Sources: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... And sources I cited earlier.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Defending my arguments. First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary. I made this argument in r1 and thus far has been uncontested. I have fulfilled my burden of proof with this documentary in round one. As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority. Argument one, burning of fossil fuels increase Co2. I've shown that the EPA states that burning of fossil fuels increase the greenhouse gas of CO2. I was unable to figure out why CO2 levels dropped during the time interval of 1940-1950. Yet, I did show that by my opponent's same graph CO2 levels have risen dramatically. In 1850 with Co2 at 285.2 ppm and in the year 2011 391.15 ppm. This is a cherry picking fallacy, my opponent has chosen a time frame that best suits him/her despite the obvious overall trend of higher concentrations of CO2. "The two main byproducts of natural gas combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor" [8] As you can see the combustion of natural gas causes carbon dioxide, Co2 emissions. 2. Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph. 3. Ice in Antarctica The overall tend is hotter. As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority. Argument one, burning of fossil fuels increase Co2. I've shown that the EPA states that burning of fossil fuels increase the greenhouse gas of CO2. I was unable to figure out why CO2 levels dropped during the time interval of 1940-1950. Yet, I did show that by my opponent's same graph CO2 levels have risen dramatically. In 1850 with Co2 at 285.2 ppm and in the year 2011 391.15 ppm. This is a cherry picking fallacy, my opponent has chosen a time frame that best suits him/her despite the obvious overall trend of higher concentrations of CO2. "The two main byproducts of natural gas combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor" [8] As you can see the combustion of natural gas causes carbon dioxide, Co2 emissions. 2. Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph. 3. Ice in Antarctica The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false. 4. CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated. The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory. Conclusions My opponent relies almost exclusively on cherry picking as a strategy. The overall trend is warmer and Co2 levels are increasing. Thanks for debating. Sources 8. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
First off, I hope for a productive debate. Please be sure to use legitimate sources to back your argument up and I will do likewise. Let's agree, What is climate change? Rising ambient temperatures? Holes in the ozone? Rising sea levels? Increase in greenhouse gases?
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point. "CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise" There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics. Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise" All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.
The climate is not "a changing".
A couple interesting statements Cumulative sea level, According to the EPA, Has risen 8 inches since 1880. This is a primary indicator of climate change, Whether it’s caused by anthropogenic activity is debatable. Smaller low-level islands are being submerged by the rising sea level, And not necessarily by volcanos. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to increase surface temperature, Here an on other planets. Response to my opponent He stated, Among other things, Data gathered from islands or areas near volcanos or the ring of fire is invalid. This is simply not the case, And this would discount any data gathered from the pacific rim including his own reference. On the logarithmic effect of Carbon Dioxide Our production of CO2 has been increasing exponentially, With a linear effect on temperature. So, While the impact of CO2 lessens after a certain point we will continue the linear increase of mean global temperatures due to our proportionally increased CO2 production (assuming nothing changes). On Antarctica Antarctica is melting, That much should be apparent. According to some estimates, The ice is melting six times faster than it did 40 years ago. When ice melts it briefly cools around it’s surroundings, Think about an icecube in a cup of water. This means Antarctica’s temperature will not necessarily be consistent with the rest of the world, And will in some cases get sporadically colder as large chunks of ice melt. So, With my opponents theory, He himself has provided evidence for climate change. If the earth relies upon Antarctica for cooling, And Antarctica is melting, Then global warming is causing climate change.
global climate change is human caused
"It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before." -According to the EPA: "Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by between 1.0 and 1.7�F since 1850 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006)." Now, the problem with this is that there was not a decline, rather a rise, in CO2 emissions between 1945-1975, so it is nearly impossible to pin the blame on any one factor, particularly humans. The EPA also states that: "Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time." This all occured BEFORE the industrial revolution, and before humans could possibly have any significant effect on global greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, though there is confidence within the scientific communit, there is not enough evidence to assign human fault in recent climate change: "Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time." That's just referring to the last 25 years, and discounting the drop in climate between 1945-1975. "Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily." -Well, thanks for asking what I think. I think the Earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling. I believe the Eearth has natural elements which control the percentages of greenhouse gases in it's atmosphere which regulate the temperatures between cooling periods (ice ages), warming periods (like now), and stable periods. There is enough evidence to suggest that humans are a contributing factor in a significant rise in the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but the sharp rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not coincide with the slight rise in global mean temperature. "This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming." -The "greenhouse effect" is a GOOD thing. Any planet with an atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect"... otherwise the Earth would be like the moon. Global warming is also a GOOD thing. Can you imagine what the Earth would be like if it wasn't naturally insulated??? "Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming." -You didn't prove this, you simply stated this. Even if you were right, you are now contradicting your original statement. A "huge factor" is not en exclusive cause as you suggested in your statement: "Humans are causing the rise in global temperature". It also is contradictory to the entire statement: " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." Here are a few points you have failed to prove: -Humans are causing the rise in global temperature (Not true. The natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet, our current place in the warming/cooling timeline, and other natural anomalies are at least mostly responsible for any significant rise in global temperature- even by the estimates of the most staunch global warming scientists) -Humans are causing global warming. (Not true. This is completely false and impossible. Humans are not greenhouse gases, nor are we a part of the atmosphere. We are not the Sun that shines on the earth, we are not the ocean that traps and releases CO2 according to mean global temperatures, and we are not a part of hundreds of other natural factors that create the beneficial process of global warming) Now, for those of you who are too liberal and hardheaded to read a debate before voting on your own opinion- I am not saying greenhouse gas emissions should not be regulated. I am not saying that the global temperatures WON'T rise to higher levels, and I am not saying that humans do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. What I am saying is that the environmentalist position is misunderstood by many, and thus causes conservatives to disagree with and dismiss the issue of global warming. We must address the issues that are facts- greenhouse gases are required to promote the natural occurence of global warming. Greenhouse gases have risen by more than 38% in the past 100 years. Even if we cannot personally account for that 38% increase, we have the power to regulate further increases so that we may better aide in the stabilization of the presence of greenhouse gases so as to prevent the POSSIBILITY of an alarming increase in global temperatures. Stop the fearmongering and deal with the issues according to the facts (that applies to conservatives and liberals alike).
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand. Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument. Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can. Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing) Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period) Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s. Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined. Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007) http://i0.wp.com... Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007) http://zfacts.com... Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere. Cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other variables in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong. Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong (see earlier argument for graphs) Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic. In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct. Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote. To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus. Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing: Here is an article saying the same thing: http://www.forbes.com... Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win. I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...
Climate Shift
Pro has accused me of insulting him, I have done no such thing. Quite the opposite has been demonstrated by pro. Twice he has made comments focused on my person and not the argument at hand. "What a surprisingly short response" "What a rude and poorly thought response" Perhaps I should not have accepted this debate, but after seeing how Pro had attempted to set up a "slam dunk" format that included 2 out of 3 points that are impossible to argue against. 1) global warming is real. I reiterate that the FACT we do not currently live on a frozen planet is impossible to argue against. The FACT that ice age specialized species such as the wooly mammoth are now extinct because the ice age has ended can NOT be argued against. Pro's first point does not actually require intellectual debate. 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. This is equally irrelevant as Pro's first point. Regardless of the cause of climate change, be it man made or a natural cycle, it is our instinct to survive. This point is stating the obvious. In closing I wish to reiterate that this debate's only arguable point was #2, is climate change man made. I accepted this debate anyway in an attempt to overcome the obvious "slam dunk" framework that Pro had stacked in his/her favor. Furthermore Pro's entire argument about point #2 was based upon a consensus that doesn't exist unless you exclude 66% of published papers on this issue thereby cherry picking your statistics. The huge wall of info graphics and other data provided by Pro amounted to a fear mongering lecture of pseudo scientific prophecy. We don't even have accurate climate change models that predicted the 20 year pause in global warming, until after it was already observed and we adjusted our old models to account for this new information. Because of this, Pro's predictions about the year 2100 can even be taken seriously nor are they relevant to the only arguable question in this debate. Is climate shift man made... I trust the voters will see through Pro's attempt to manipulate their emotions with prophecy of doom.
Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change
I understand the argument. First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but climate change is also immediate and will take much longer to resolve. Finally, I would also like to state that the solutions for climate change coincide with the solutions for poverty. Just as an example, the Tesla Power Wall allows consumers to store energy that is collected by solar panels, and use it anytime they want. This will prove to be extremely useful for underdeveloped areas which are not anywhere near a power grid. In reference to that statement, I argue that solving the climate change issue first would be more beneficial to the human race than attempting the vice-versa option which you are arguing. While I agree that educating people will lead to the reduction of global climate change, I think that by the time every underdeveloped country catches up in education, it will be too late for the earth. With that, I do believe that global climate change is a greater issue than poverty, and that focusing attention on that would be better for the human race.
Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change
I thank my opponent for this opportunity. I will be arguing against the statement that "Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global climate change." I will begin by defining my terms and clarifying my argument: Poverty: The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. Education: The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. Hunger :A compelling need or desire for food. Greater: Unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions. Issue: A point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law. Climate change: A long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature. All definitions were directly quoted from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com... The context of all key terms and words should be understood otherwise I will further elaborate. When the instigator refers to the issue of education I am assuming that they are talking about the lack of free education in specific countries. Also, I assume that hunger is an Issue that is attached to poverty as a result. With that being said, I understand that lack of education and hunger are typically effects that are caused by poverty. I am arguing against this claim because I do not believe that it is true. I do believe that poverty is a serious issue. I do believe that every country should allow free education through the 12 grade. I also believe that hunger and death from malnutrition are Important issues. But, I argue that none of these three issues are as important as Climate change. Here's why: Poverty, and the issues surrounding it such as hunger and education effect a select few. Climate change effects every single person living on Earth and every single person who ever will live on Earth. That is my argument, I look forward to this debate.
The US needs to do much more to combat climate change
You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. You have to choose specific technologies and specific firms that make those technologies to invest in, and we all know how the government picks its investments. https://en.wikipedia.org... The connected will get the money, rather than who has the best idea. In the private sector, if your company can make more money, you'll find investors. So I say stop subsidizing oil, let a few more years go by, alternative energy will already be cheaper without Uncle Sam spending any of his money, and climate change will effectively resolve itself.
Debate.org
