args

CON

• CON

  Note that in either of these years the correlation,...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

  Correlations As we can see, my opponent is playing a semantics game in attempt to salvage his defeated case. When looking at the facts, though, we see his semantic attempt is laughable. For example, in debate the resolution is like the constitution, a law of the land, correct? Yes. The wording in the resolution reads “driven”. But the definition is propelled by something [1]. Based on the definition it is extremely clear that the resolution means CO2 is the main cause, based on that fact my opponent already loses the debate. Now my opponent’s quote of myself also proves my point, as cause is defined as to make something happen [2]. The syntax of this also shows cause is usually defined as the “main” thing. For example, CO2 may be a factor, but is not the cause. And it is likely human CO2 can have the effect as it is given by alarmists. And even earlier in the round it is made blatantly clear that Pro would argue that CO2 would cause the majority of warming. Based on the resolution and my position as ‘con’, it means I would be against the resolution. The definitions of CO2 prove: “In other words, it [Co2] is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.” As con, it is obvious I am against this hypothesis furthering the claim that the debate is about the majority of warming. My opponents semantically driven claim fails. And as he never even touched my facts, I extend the argument. In hopes my opponent returns to the debate, and stops accusations of wrongdoings, which I apologize for if he truly thinks they exist, I will build upon the point I made earlier: there is no significant correlation between temperature and co2; especially within the last decade. My opponent never counters the claim in which CO2 has not a significant enough correlation to be the main factor in warming; as for it to be major the correlation should be in the range the PDO is currently in. In the majority of the time, the CO2 correlation was lacking, however the correlation really only was strong between 1980 – 90, and 1925 – 30. Note that in either of these years the correlation, overall, is extremely weak. The paper concludes, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.”[3] Other then the fact this clearly demonstrates natural factors are a more likely candidate to cause warming let me emphasis the last decade point. If the theory was correct, unstoppable global warming and high correlations would exist that would spiral out of control and we would melt! But as usual alarmist science fails. For something to be correct, it must have the ability to predict phenomena. For example, the periodic table of the elements has predicted what many of the missing elements are/where, and many have been found exactly as predicted. Co2 theory suggests warming should be extremely high… but it was zero. With a correlation of almost zero in the last decade, it essentially proves that Co2 is not a major factor and the science in which it was built is small, and non-existent [3]. No correlation no bang, no bang pro loses. He says many times my source says differently, without direct quotations from it. I have cited it many times, and took stuff out of its conclusions. Let me repeat, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.” You where saying about lying? And what evidence? A graph which I disproved and showed its correlations extremely weak, and that the PDO correlation is impeccable? As we can see, my opponent has offered no evidence other then a graph, which has weak correlation. And the graph is in my source… and the writer shows weak correlation… I prefer not to ask readers to read links, but to prove I am not lying read the summary of the paper here: http://wattsupwiththat.com... Other factors My opponent goes on a rampage. He doesn’t care. See paragraph 1-3 under correlations. He needs to prove these natural factors do not cause the majority of global warming, and that CO2 is a likely candidate. But as he cannot do this he goes into ad homeneim attacks which I have been attempting to avoid in this debate. But the funny thing is a 14 year old with newly found testosterone is keeping his cool more then a fully-grown man… So instead of rebutting this he just dismisses it based on his former semantics. These where rebutted and the point is extended. So instead of attacking my opponent, I will build upon the case already created. Lets first look at solar, a common sense look as it is the only light bulb in the oven. Many studies have come out, with little media attention no less, that make strong cases for solar forgings in climate. Sunspot number is an accepted proxy for measuring the intensity of the suns wrath. NIPCC 2011 As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2 [4]. PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [4]. Conclusions: My opponent threw all his eggs in two baskets: ad homeneim and semantics. Neither where justified, and he has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, which was given to him in round one. This is an obvious victory for con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [4] S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.51

    climate: 14.57

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

    premises: 5.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.10)

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

    change: 8.94

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

    premises: 1.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.63)

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

  Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  I accept most of the rules of your debate, but do not accept the character limit. Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't change the character limit to 10,000 within a half hour despite being online, I will use a google docs if I go over 8,000 characters, but will not go over 10,000 characters. You may do the same if you go over 8,000, but be sure not to go over 10,000 characters. Do you agree to this? If not, I'll just forfeit the debate. Definitions: Anthropogenic: "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature"[1] I felt the definition of that word may be necessary since it's a large word that many people may not have heard of before, so I defined it for the benefit of the voters. Sources: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.39

    climate: 11.44

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

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 11.95

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

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the...

  Show full argument

  Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

  Maurice Strong - In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report. The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led Climate Council. This is not confusing, this is fact. 2. Mauna Loa. My opponent is using information from a volcano site as being average for global CO2 levels. Hmmmmmmm????????? Does anybody with half a brain see something wrong here???????? Gee Con, that must be why the graph suddenly shot up all of a sudden because they started using a volcano site as their average. lol Good work, Swede named Knut Angstrom. lol Nut alright!!!! lol 3. Sea levels rising? If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M"rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M"rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5. Authority fallacy? Drrrrr???? Never heard of that one before. Gee, does that mean that I should disbelieve all the IPCC and NOAA garbage? lol

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Reserved-for-FollowerofChrist-Climate-change-is-real-and-a-massive-threat-to-humanity./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.37

    climate: 13.97

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

    premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)

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

    change: 9.40

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

    premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  First I’d like to note that Tuvalu has an average...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

  Right, last round my sources had a problem, but I’ve reposted them in the comments section. I thank my opponent for the fantastic debate, and may the best arguments win. C1: Public Health First, I’d like to note that Pro hasn’t addressed my points about dengue fever or yellow fever. To argue that infections decrease in warming periods misses the fact that over the past century or so we’ve made significant strides in treatments for tropical diseases such as malaria, as well as in fighting mosquito outbreaks[cite]. My argument is that all things being equal, an increase in temperature results in an increase in the spread of mosquito-born diseases. The fact that malaria can survive outside of the tropics is rather incidental to whether or not it is more virulent in the tropics. Pro concludes that since malaria rates have decreased over time, and it has happened outside the tropics, malaria would not be affected by global warming. The problem with this is that malaria rates (and pretty much every other tropical disease rate) responds to whatever’s forcing it, just like climate. Keep your temperature steady and leave standing water everywhere and you get more malaria. Kill mosquitos and keep everything else constant and malaria rates drop. We know that malaria is more virulent in warmer areas[1]. Therefore, as the world warms, we either are faced with an increase in malaria cases or have to expand our public health infrastructure to prevent them from occurring in the first place. The first can result in an increase in deaths, the second would have to be very well planned to avoid all deaths and would still result in economic damages. Ergo, we can conclude that a warming world presents risk. As far as heat deaths, this data may be true for the UK and Germany, but it is not necessarily true universally. Many low-income areas are in hot areas rather than cold ones, so quite conceivably that could cause there to still be a net increase in fatalities. C2: Sea Level Rise I don’t argue for an apocalypse where the ocean rises twenty feet. First I’d like to note that Tuvalu has an average elevation of about six feet above sea level. The highest point is fifteen feet[2]. So it doesn’t necessarily take much to cause damage. Also, there are waves, and tides, so even if a given area would still be above average sea level, that doesn’t mean it won’t get water damage. Secondly, sea level rise isn’t going to be constant everywhere. This is due to a variety of factors, such as the gravitational pull of the Earth being slightly different in different locations, temperature variations, and tectonic plates[3]. Unfortunately for Tuvalu, it sits in what is probably the most unfortunate location a bunch of low-level coral atolls could[4]. Sea level in Tuvalu rises about three times as fast as in other locations[5]. About 2.8 inches could matter quite a bit for an island that’s about six feet above sea level when one accounts for the fact that for them it could quite possibly be more in the range of 8 inches. This same reasoning can be applied to other locations. Brazil is close to an area that has a higher sea level[6]. As to Pro’s claim that sea level is falling, the only thing that his source says that supports that is that the level fell slightly in one specific area in Western Canada, by .5 mm. That is hardly a global sea level drop, and satellite data confirms that sea level is rising[7]. C3: Ocean Acidification That same paper cited concedes that calcification would be adversely impacted. As calcifying organisms are an essential part of the food chain, this doesn’t do much to dismiss my claim that ocean acidification poses a risk. In relation to the claim that increased carbon dioxide could be beneficial to shells, experiments with increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in seawater where shells are growing refute that. Shell dissolution is far more affected than shell calcification[8], in any event. While it’s true that pH isn’t fixed in the ocean, that doesn’t mean that shifting the whole range of pH values downwards, towards the more acidic end of the scale, would necessarily be acceptable. If I’m adapted to survive climates of 10-20 degrees Celsius, and it shifts upwards two or three degrees, I’m experiencing significant environmental stress. Since a drop in pH of one (say, from four to three) is a tenfold increase, since pH is a logarithmic scale, the problem with pH is even bigger. C4: Cloud Forests It’s true that Lawton’s paper shows that deforestation is having a significant effect on the cloud forests. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that global warming has no effect. Modeling has demonstrated that increases in carbon dioxide would indeed affect the cloud forests[9]. Obviously deforestation has an effect to, as does general land use, but it can’t be gathered from the fact that damage to the cloud forests is caused by multiple factors that global warming has no effect. It is true that precipitation, in some regions, increases due to global warming. And it’s true that worse droughts have happened in the past. However, I must ask my opponent: Would you prefer a severe drought that is less severe than a massive drought that caused widespread damage, or would you prefer no drought at all? As Pro’s own source points out, droughts that are accompanied by warmer temperatures impact the environment more. Furthermore, global warming alters air circulation patterns, causing the distribution of moisture to change[11]. Even if all else remains equal, certain parts are going to get drier and other parts will get wetter--which has the potential for negative consequences, as noted in my source. For instance, recent droughts in the Sahel are expected to increase in severity due to global warming. Conclusion: I’ve demonstrated that the evidence points towards global warming not being due to the Sun—while I haven’t demonstrated that humans caused global warming, I don’t really need to. Given that the equations that are the current scientific consensus about how to predict warming match up with real observations, we can reasonably conclude that they are correct. Meanwhile, I’ve shown that any economic or health benefits from a warming world would be far outweighed by the costs—ocean acidification, sea level rise, loss of cloud forests, increase in heat stroke deaths, and spread of several virulent diseases. books.google.com/books?id=FhfuV22JZ_sC&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.geo.umass.edu... http://uanews.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.21

    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 2.03)

    change: 10.08

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

    premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.88)
• CON

  I accept.

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  I accept.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.19

    climate: 12.80

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

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 10.39

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

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

  I accept the debate with full knowledge that my arguments...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  I accept the debate with full knowledge that my arguments will be completely disregarded and ignored by all voters because people on this website are all communist conspirators or completely brain dead nincompoops who believe all government propaganda.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/10/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.17

    climate: 12.79

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

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

    change: 10.38

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)
• CON

  https://cei. ... The ball is in your court HockeyPunk to...

  Show full argument

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

  While it may seem that I am weakening my own position, I will concede that climate change IS a real thing. It undeniable that the climate changes however, The question is how much do we influence it and are we in as much danger as Greta Thunberg thinks we are? I would very much appreciate the studies from my competitor because the studies I've read all rely on predictive climate models and not on actual data of the climate as it is. I hope theirs doesn't. There is also the rather odd trend of every climate prediction being wrong, Consistently from famines to new Ice Ages. https://cei. Org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions I don't know about my competitor but I myself am not a climate scientist but as I understand it, The rising climate temperature from CO2 produced by humans is very insignificant and requires adjusting climate models in order to get the big numbers but again, I'm no expert. https://www. Thegwpf. Com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/ This is not an argument for allowing the US and China (the biggest contributors of CO2) to not reduce their footprint. While I'm very suspicious of bills the the Green New Deal, I think it's a good thing to try and be more efficient with how we consume energy. What I'm speaking to is simply about the assertion that humans have a significant influence in the global climate, Which to me seems to give ourselves far too much credit, And that our inaction could result in great dangers which again, Relies entirely on the belief that we have any sort of control over the climate. I know people in the UK, Especially people who lived in the 60s, Who point to the horrendous rain and flooding that is rather uncommon in that part of the world as proof of the urgency of global action but we still haven't even established yet whether this is because of us or not. It certainly isn't the UK's fault since they aren't the huge contributors like China and the US. The ball is in your court HockeyPunk to prove that we are enough of an influence in the climate to even do anything to prevent any future disaster.

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

    BM25 score: 23.13

    climate: 15.44

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

    premises: 9.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.91)

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

    change: 7.69

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

    premises: 2.96 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.15)

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

  You must have been a public servant at some stage. ......

  Show full argument

  Human caused climate change is nonsense

  Okay, Thank you for your argument. I will just quickly go over what you said in Round 5: >>>Well, It looks like you need everything in triplicate or you don't believe it. You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol Reply: No, I did not work in Government at any point, For your information. >>>National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. Reply: I'm afraid I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate. >>>The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Correct. >>>video - The in depth story behind a climate fraud. I have watched the video, And much of the information is factually incorrect. The hockey stick has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers, Independently. Source: http://environmentalforest. Blogspot. Com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team. Html I will now provide a list of all my points that Akhenaten has not yet refuted. CO2 warming does not saturate. Source: https://www. Skepticalscience. Com/saturated-co2-effect. Htm Burning of fuel has been proven to release CO2. Source: my analysis of the data at https://ourworldindata. Org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#temperature-increase An increase in CO2 production coincides with the Industrial Revolution. Source: https://ourworldindata. Org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#temperature-increase, With further sources on this page. CO2 has been shown to increase warming. Source: https://www. Skepticalscience. Com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect. Htm, With further sources on that page. Considering that these strong points remain unrebutted by the opposition, It is clear that I have won this debate. Thank you to Akhenaten for the debate, And thank you to the voters for voting for me.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.05

    climate: 14.71

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 4.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.89)

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

    change: 8.33

    conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)

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

  My opponent stated that "First and foremost, my opponent...

  Show full argument

  Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

  My opponent stated that "First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary" However, my entire case has been in contradiction to the inconvenient truth documentary, as seen when my opponent states "scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth", I have offered scientific in direct contradiction to the scientific evidence in the movie, thus I have negated my opponent's ENTIRE argument. " As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority." Seeing as my opponent likes to spew out the term "fallacy", I will spew out the term band wagon fallacy which this argument is, because The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. My opponent has admitted to doing this by sating that "climate change deniers are within the minority" In my opponent's (rather short) rebuttal he said that I was cherry picking again (in my first argument) He did show that I chose a time fame that best suits me, but that time frame that best suits me shows a DIRECT INDEPENDENCE between oil consumption and CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't cherry picking because I didn't just show a single year or two of independence I showed an entire decade of data. Not only this, but in my 3rd graph (on my first argument) I showed how CO2 levels has been extremely higher than we've ever seen in humanity's history (in some cases over 8000 PPM well before the industrial revolution). Once again I showed independence between ATMOSPHERIC CO2 and Fossil Fuel Consumption. My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 has no direct relationship to fossil fuel consumption, he lists the obvious fact that CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels, but shows no explanation to why an entire decade (and more) of data shows no relation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2, in fact he drops the point in his second argument when he says he cannot explain why this statistic occurred. My opponent's second rebuttal states "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." I haven't forgotten any claims that I have made, however my opponent has not shown anything contrary to my original claim, his only counter argument negates his entire argument when my opponent blames the spike in temperature on El Nino, a climate feature unrelated to Global Warming. But again even I admitted there was a slight warming trend since 1978, but if the El Nino spike is removed from the data the trend disappears, so my opponent admits that Global Warming is not the cause of the temperature since 1978. My opponent's third rebuttal states "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." However I have shown 3 different examples of a lack of an overall warming trend. My first example being my 1st chart on my first argument, which shows that GLOBALLY the overall warming trend (that there is) is "statistically insignificant" (since 1978). My second example shows that in the US temperatures are cooling over the last decade. My third example shows that in the North and East Atlantic Ocean, as well as, the British Isles have not experienced any warming. My opponent's fourth rebuttal states "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." My opponent has offered one singular graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, I have pointed out that there are events on his graph that shows an independence between the two variables, on top of this, I have offered TWICE as much evidence in the contrary, which my opponent has neglected to mention, showing independence between the two variables even over millions of years. Again I'd like to crystalize my arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid My opponent has not other a sufficient refutation for this argument, because this point refutes the definition of Global Warming, it proves that, as we are debating it, Global Warming is not real and thus not a threat. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... My opponent calls this point "cherry picking" however as I have proven, this is not true, and because my opponent has not offered contrary evidence and because of that this point still stands 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory My opponent's first reputation was to say that the ice caps would not melt if Global Warming occurred, however I have shown that this is false, then my opponent made a refutation that is not in contradiction to anything that I stated, so this point still stands. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases My opponent has neglected to mention either of my graphs and my opponent's evidence has been refuted making this point still relevant in this debate. Now I'd like to show why I have won this debate My opponent's arguments have been proven false or a fallacy. My opponent's first "point" is the pope's quote which I've shown to be worth no value to this debate, and I have proven it to be a bandwagon fallacy. My opponent's second point is the Inconvenient Truth Movie which posits scientific evidence for the theory of Global Warming, However, my entire case is in direct contradiction to this movie and acts as counter evidence and a rebuttal to the movie. So, because both of my opponent's arguments have been proven wrong, and my opponent's refutations have been untrue and unfounded, and I have proven them to be so, Thus, I have won this debate... Judges must vote in favor of the Con because of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented and the lack of evidence for my opponent. I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun and enlightening debate.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./4/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.95

    climate: 13.99

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

    premises: 4.70 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.98)

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

    change: 8.96

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

    premises: 1.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.63)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  First off, we need to define "Climate Change". We do this because it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of "Climate Change". For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools. It has been happening since the beginning of the Earth, and Scientists are currently studying it via the geological record in both Ice Cores and in Earth Coring samples. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the "scientific theory" that HUMANS are causing the Climate to Change. Usually blamed on the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "Global Warming" as opposed to "Global Cooling" are way too ambiguous of phrases for this discussion and should not be used. I will break this up into 3 separate segments because I see it has 3 features, they are related, but they all play their part : Segment One: Climate Change: Climate Change, as opposed to Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a natural process, and includes both increases and decreases in temperature. According to the Geologic Record, from what we know from the Ice Cores and Sediment Cores, we are currently in a cool period. The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c. The current, short term, average temperature is only about 14c. The maximum estimated temperatures are up around 25c and the Minimum around 10c. The simple conclusion from just those basic facts is we are generally cooler than what is "normal" for our planet. Therefore what we consider "warming" is simply just a "return to normal". Any "hype" about "the end of the world" doesn't even begin to be relevant until we start to clime over 18c, because the Earth was still active and very much alive with temperatures as high as 25c. The Earth also has its own ideas when it comes to warming and CO2. For much of the Earth's history, CO2 level have been much higher (a mean of about 3500 ppm) than they are now, with a high of about 7000 ppm and a low of about 180 ppm. Interestingly, the CDC says the "warning" level for CO2 is 5000 ppm. For Humans, CO2 becomes dangerous (asphyxiation) at 30,000 - 100,000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not clear and we have scientists arguing if increases in CO2 precede warming periods, or if the increase is caused by the warming period. In either case, one thing is clear, even at 7000 ppm, both humans and plants would survive. It is estimated that the Optimal concentration for CO2 for plant growth is between 1500 and 2500 ppm, well below the CDC's limits. The net effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is the increase of biomass (green plant-life) on the planet. More biomass equals more O2. The current measurement of CO2 is about 380 ppm. The current levels of CO2 are about on par with what existed before the 1820s. The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally high, nor are they odd, out of the ordinary, or even dangerous in any way. The opposite is true, however, that the CO2 levels appear to be normalizing and benefiting biomass which is a benefit, not a detriment. We have now established a baseline. The average Temperatures are up around 18c, and the CO2 level around 3500 ppm. This would appear to be "normal" for the Earth, even if it doesn't seem "normal" from our current point of view. Now, I would like to look at some "evidences" of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and real Climate Change: 1) Warming has caused more and more severe hurricanes. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. http://news.heartland.org... 2) Warming has caused more and more severe wildfires. Fact is, the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned have remained consistent for at least the past 13 years. I have included the graph in the comments section, and this is where I got the information: http://www.nifc.gov... 3) Arctic ice is melting. There was a 29% increase in arctic ice this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4) Antarctic ice is melting. Antarctic ice is also increasing, hitting a 35 year high this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5) Polar bears are dying off. Actually, their population is increasing. Based on some estimates, by 4200 bears since 2001. http://www.npr.org... 6) Human generated CO2 has caused an increase in global temperatures. Temperatures have stayed constant over the last 17 years. http://www.forbes.com... 7) Sea Level is increasing rapidly. Over the past 150 years, there has been no drastic, alarming, or abnormal increase in sea level. One site, SkepticalScience, shows a graph from 1880 to now. Sea Levels are about the same now as they were then. It appears, from the graph, that it is cyclical. The following is from an expert in the field: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org... The only conclusion, therefore, is Climate Change is a natural process and does not appear to be abnormally affected by people. Segment Two: Politics: The Politics of Climate Change, like anything in politics, is all about money. First I would like to mention a warning signs of a "political agenda", like "science by consensus". One of the first things we heard from the IPCC and other AGW activists is how "scientists are in consensus" and "all the evidence suggests". Any science minded person knows this isn't true in ANY scientific field. For every scientist FOR something, there is one AGAINST it, and another one who has his own theory. For instance, we have "the big bangers" and the "black holers" when it comes to the origin of our universe... there are those in the scientific community who question gravity... and in climate science, there are all kinds of voices, some for and yes, some against. SCIENCE is not something done by CONSENSUS, but by application of the Scientific Theory. Another warning sign is when any bit of science becomes a political talking point. Politicians are notorious for conflating issues; in the '70s is was "Global Cooling" and today "Global Warming". Neither of which are true; its all just Climate Change. Further evidence of a "political agenda" when it comes to Science is developing and passing legislation to try to alter nature. Just because you pass a law that forbids the sun from rising, doesn't mean the sun won't rise. Second, I must point out "bad science", to go along with the "political agenda": Mistakes: http://www.newscientist.com... (8 other sources in comments) Manipulations: http://www.guardian.co.uk... Lies: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.brutallyhonest.org... Third, after seeing the political agenda, we must ask "who is making money on this?" When Al Gore came up with the idea of "trading carbon credits", financial experts had their hair set on fire. They recognized the beginnings of a ponzi scheme. Carbon trading is a Billion (if not Trillion) dollar scheme. Private individuals and Governments stand to make a fortune. http://www.newsbusters.org... http://www.marketwired.com... Luckily, some are realizing the fraud: http://www.cfact.org... Segment Three: Alternative Theories: Another warning sign is the complete lack of alternate theories to either compliment or detract from the supposed consensus, especially from those sources that HAVE both points of view, like NASA. Below are several links discussing another plausible cause of "Climate Change"; Solar activity: http://www.americanthinker.com... (12 other sources in comments) As you can see, it isn't something to ignore, and it calls into question the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. I have also included some more information from a variety of sources that talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem: http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://www.co2science.org... http://www.nature.com... http://blogs.nature.com... We should also understand that "weather" and "climate" are different things. Weather, for instance, can be influenced by people: http://www.agu.org... http://www.nature.com... http://www.nature.com... You asked for some scientists that don't support AGW, well, here is a partial list of 31,000: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com... NONE of this is to say that I don't believe we should be responsible stewards of our Earthly home. I believe in Recycling, conservation, etc. I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon. NOTE: due to the 10,000 character limit, I have placed many of my links to sources in the comments section.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-denial-is-unusual-in-the-scientific-community/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.86

    climate: 18.38

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)

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

    change: 4.48

    premises: 4.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.59)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)