Any source
Pro vs. con view
824 arguments retrieved in 90.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns Con managed to find recent examples of politicians blaming hurricanes and forest fires on climate change, and has cited how humans are not in danger of asphyxiation, but he has neglected the long-established mainstream concerns of the scientific community. They now deserve review. Atmospheric CO2: CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. Atmospheric Ozone: Unlike most greenhouse gases, ozone deflects ultraviolet light, which is dangerously energetic. While most greenhouse gases keep life on earth warm and cozy, ozone prevents UV rays from directly burning life forms. Climate change from emission of halocarbons and CFCs are thankfully already regulated because of their ability to destroy ozone, but they are one more example of the potential for anthropogenic climate change. Oceanic: The oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. Con points to the seasonal increase in ice, ignoring the seasonal decrease in ice (see logical fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter), and to a non-scientific news article that predicted we would not have ice at this time (see logical fallacy: Fallacy). Fallacious Logic: Anecdotal [26] vs. Statistical Evidence and Misinterpretation of Mistakes [27]: If a physicist miscalculates the speed of the moon, it doesn't disprove the theory of gravitation. If we argued about whether gravity existed, it would be perfectly fair for Con to cite research projects that conclude that Newton's calculus systematically fails at predicting the paths of celestial bodies, but if Con cannot find such research conclusions, substituting with examples where "meteor alarmists" fail to predict the exact path of a meteoroid for five years brings nothing to the discussion. There are two logical reasons for this: Con would be relying on 1) 'anecdotal' evidence that ignores a larger picture, and 2) an absolutist interpretation in which a single mistake disproves an entire theory. This is the precise mechanism Con used in the first round of this debate. He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change theorists, but they scarcely dented the scientific data showing the existence of anthropogenic climate change. He additionally provides one link labeled "bad science," one labeled "manipulations" and two links labeled "lies," which are additionally statistically irrelevant and inevitable. Again, following this logic, would Con conclude that chemotherapy is inneffective because it occasionally doesn't work? No, he would know better, because even though the burden of proof relies on the treatment, instances where it demonstrates validity are more relevant than instances where it does not. What changes so much about people's thought process when contemplating climate change? Con's third properly cited source debunks an incorrect 5-year prediction by BBC, and its author, David Rose, writes as if this debunks every climate change theory on earth. Con's sixth properly cited source responds to a New York Times article, because actual climate science holds that increases in global heat can go undetected to atmospheric readings for decades at a time, partially because the oceans absorb heat as well. Strawman Fallacy [28]: Of the seven sources Con cites properly, the first responds to the hurricane correlation but admits to global warming. The second responds to the wildfire correlation but says nothing of global warming. Climate science never relied on hurricanes or wildfires as evidence. Cherrypicking and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [29]: Con's third properly cited source neglects the past century, the past decade, and mentions only that the arctic still gets colder at the proper time of year (and is written by a biased reporter whose profile boasts of shooting down "climate alarmists"). The fourth referred only to antarctic sea ice of 2013 and admitted to an average warming of temperatures, stating “If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” and even cites a long-established global warming theory that the average increase in temperatures creates hotter and colder extremes (Antarctic temperatures count as extremes). The fifth ignores global polar bear numbers and focuses on the "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," and responds only to "Polar Bear worries," distorting the concerns of mainstream climate scientists who already believe global warming will freeze the colder parts of the globe for the next several decades. The sixth responds to a New York Times article that I can only assume is fallacious - I didn't check, because the New York Times is not a scientific journal, nor is Forbes. Con's seventh properly cited source refers to sea level, which depends on melting ice, which I've already mentioned was never scheduled to happen on mass scales for several more decades, because climate change starts by making hot areas hotter and cold areas colder. Appeal to Nature [30]: Polio, the Flu, infant mortality, the bubonic plague, and a host of other issues are all perfectly natural, but for some reason most of society felt they are worth our attention. While I daresay Con would agree, his basic logical processing once again changes when the topic becomes climate change. "For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools" and "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" are fallacious appeals to nature by Con. Accusations of Monetary Incentive: Con has stated that climate research is all about grant money, but hasn't defined any government objective to alarm people about climate change. In fact, the greatest political rivals of climate environmentalism are oil and coal. The government's oil lobby is huge, and many Congressmen have financial investments in oil and deny the existence of climate change. American voters complain to the U.S. government when gas prices go up, and the U.S. government has subsidized oil markets for decades. Coal produces the cheapest electricity prices available, and is commonly painted politically as an employment blessing to coal miners. Also, Con's sixth source responds to "New York Times" hysteria, not scientific hysteria, suggesting a rivalry between corporate news agencies. Ambiguity of Semantics [31]: "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." What? Abuse of sources: Misrepresentation of scientific sources provided: I quote from one of Con's Solar Radiation links: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction." Con no doubt referenced and pasted his Solar Radiation links thinking they would show that Global Warming occurs because of the sun, when in fact they show the opposite. Selection of non-scientific sources: While he cites scientific sources to discuss Solar Radiation in the comments section, and while he pastes several links from nature.com (claiming they "talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem"), the sources he effectively summarizes and properly cites are non-scientific. Lack of citation for relevant sources and overcitation for irrelevant sources: "The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c." - It's possible Con means negative 18c, which is what the average temperature of the earth would hypothetically be if the greenhouse effect didn't work. Our existence is a demonstration of its relevance. I would visit his provided source to find out what he really means, but none was provided. Con pasted so many URL's that he avoided reading, summarizing or discussing that he didn't have room to provide actual sources for the facts he cited. He provided so many sources that support my end of this argument that by taking the time to explain them, I scarcely have space to add any more. Since it is my belief that debates have character limits to help force debaters to know what they are talking about, I refuse to follow his example and post a chaotic pool of sources in the comments section. 26. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 27. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 28. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 29. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 30. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 31. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

  • PRO

    If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor...

    Climate Shift

    A suprisingly short response. Framework My opponent has totally ignored the framework thus far, using round 1 for construction instead of acceptance, and round 2 for rebuttals instead of construction. Conduct should be awarded to pro for this reason. Pro's Defence Only the scientists who report opinions have opinions that matter. This is called Voluntary Response Bias. If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor deny the existence of climate shift. This point my opponent makes does not meet the burden of proof, and does not fully discredit the scientific consensus. The source my opponent posted does not even fully discredit my argument. Many of my points are left totally unrebbutted, and I forward those points. "The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now." This statement is vague and unsourced and isn't a compelling argument. My opponent seeks to rebut my entire argument by a failed discrediting of one source and point. He does not present a compelling case, and his argument does not meet the burden of proof.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.27
      climate: 19.77
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 3.14
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and...

    Climate change

    It is important that in a debate only the issues and the arguments presented are addressed. Referring to the adversary's school of thought is not a valid way of countering his actual arguments. E. G. in our case I may be better or worse than the "average Co2 advocate" but I must be attacked on the merit on my own arguments not on the merits of the arguments of "advocates". By doing so Con commits the straw-man fallacy (makes it look like his adversary has a weaker argument and then tries to attack the weaker argument) [1] and insinuates that I am not doing my job and only trying to demonstrate that there is global warming. I restate my initial promise and the topic on which we agreed to debate (global warming a) exists – agreed, b) is caused in a significant degree by humans – still debating). I will stick to my promise and I will win this debate by proving what I have promised. The second straw-man fallacy committed by Con is that he suggests that I must prove that all or most of the warming can be explained by Co2 increase. Although this is a clever strategy I will not get sidetracked. As I have already stated in my previous 2 speeches, I assert that global warming is caused in a "significant" degree by Co2. I have also pointed out in my 2nd speech methods that can prove my theory false. I thank Con for taking up some of them. I thank Con for clarifying his position on temperature trends. I can now contradict him without contradicting myself. Con states that temperatures have increased since the last Ice Age and the last Little Ice Age. Con further states that the temperatures have been stable for the past decade. This last statement is false; you can verify it by looking out the window or by looking at satellite temperatures [2]. Con tries to induce guilt by association [3] between GW science and GW show. I will not try to defend Al Gore. Con, however, is trying to defend oil financed science. This is a losing strategy. As I have stated, we are debating arguments. What I have presented is clear bias from the science negating human induced GW. I will further argue that while IPCC tried to link hurricanes to GW and failed, the oil industry tried to silence independent US government financed research [4]. At the end of the day we have finance for human induced GW with no strings attached and finance for negation of GW WITH strings attached form "innocent" oil companies [5] [6] (quoted by Con). It is also weird for oil industry to finance science that negates GW, given the suspicion that this arises. If all that was important was the truth then there would be no need for oil industry to spend billions on financing this research as they would get the same result with no cost. There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and no meaning in the use o loaded words like bureaucrats. The works of the IPCC are in fact peer-reviewed [7]. I see that Con has restated his idea that scientific consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now consider this as an argument per se. The first consequence of Con's argument is that he indirectly admits that there is some sort of consensus. It is clear that by counting the number of scientists that agree or dissent with global warming neither Pro, neither Con can win the debate. But they can prove probable Pro or probable Con. Con pointed out that there were times when scientists got it wrong regarding homosexuality or Steady State Theory. While the premise is correct the inference is not. These examples are interesting because nobody counts the successes. It is dull when scientists get it right. You would expect the smart people to be right. Much like in plane crash fear the proportion of false theories created by scientists is exaggerated by the fact that wrong theories are surprising. Furthermore, Con states that what ultimately "won" was science. Winning is final and large consensus would be a good sign of winning. All the factual sane knowledge we have about the world is based upon scientific consensus (not even 100%, there are still scientists that think the Earth is flat). It may be proven wrong but it rarely does. Most of the time new theories incorporate old theories instead of contradicting them (Pythagoras generalized theorem -> Pythagoras theorem). If Con were right even elementary knowledge and communication would be impossible. While consensus doesn't mean 100% certainty, it means high probability. At this level, it would be safer to bet on the vast majority of scientists. I will further prove that their science is correct. Con quoted a part of the proof [8] I presented in my second speech pointing out that there was cooling at the end of the Carboniferous period. However, Con forgot to mention anything about the fact that in the beginning the temperatures were high and that the total amount of Co2 decreased during this period. Con also ignores other phenomena that contributed to cooling [9]. My argument about Co2 concentration and temperature stands. Also the Carboniferous is called that way because of the fact that coal was formed during that period [9]. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere then was transformed into wood and than into coal. We are now just putting it back into the atmosphere. There is actually more coal than limestone formed by skeletons of sea creatures. Con is also wrong that Co2 is gradually decreasing since the last 600 million years as I have shown in my first 2 speeches. In my first argument I presented the super-greenhouse effect on Venus. Con decided to attack this example in his 2nd speech. His firs calculation is correct: Venus should receive 2 times the sunlight earth receives. The rest of the demonstration is wrong. First Con is trying to demonstrate that there is no GW on Earth, but in his calculation he uses this conclusion as an hypothesis. He states that if temperatures on Earth are 288 k and Venus temperatures 737 the greenhouse effect on Venus would be 737-2*288 = 161 (Con supposes that the mean temperature on Earth has no Greenhouse Effect). In fact the temperature of Earth with no Greenhouse Effect would be 255 K [10]. Then the temperature on Venus would be 510 K with no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect would be in fact 227 K. Con now states that the Co2 effect is linear. In his first speech he stated: "a little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically". So the relationship is not in fact linear. If Venus has a 227 K temperature increase because of greenhouse effect then on Earth a small increase in the initial concentration of Co2 would lead to severe initial increases according to Con's model. For a more clear explanation of the process see graph [11]. In fact Venus is even hotter than Mercury [12] which is closer to the Sun. The Moon also proves the greenhouse theory and it is at the same distance as earth [13] and is on average colder. I have proven the bias of the science that negates GW, gave explanations about the Carboniferous and the Co2 output, have shown how Con's calculation actually proves my theory true. Te motion stands. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.sciencemag.org... [8] http://www.geocraft.com... [9] http://www.palaeos.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://img404.imageshack.us... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://www.teachersdomain.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.27
      climate: 12.83
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 10.37
      conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    My opponent has dropped every issues except the ozone layer. I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there is conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals were the cause. [3][4] "There is now conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals are the cause of ozone depletion in the stratosphere, since chemicals found there could come from no other source (Russell et al., 1996). The reduction and elimination of production of many ozone-depleting substances in industrialize" [3] Thanks for the debate. 3. http://www.un.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.27
      climate: 9.29
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 7.34
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
      real: 6.64
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    I've had other debates on this site that even after...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I'm just going to give up at this point. I can't even understand most of what your stating let alone formulate a response. I've had other debates on this site that even after months of reviewing my opponent's argument I still couldn't make heads out of tails out of my opponent's arguments. Maybe, just maybe if I had a year to respond I could defeat you. Thanks for the debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.24
      climate: 9.28
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
      real: 6.64
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.92)
  • PRO

    Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Your arguments are long and with little breaks between paragraphs. I'm going to ignore your response and attempt to talk through you. I lost any hope of convincing you when you stated. "Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. " epidexipteryx The temperature has increased .87 Celsius. [2] The 400 ppm mark was hit in 2013. "has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii." [3] Impact, there is a clear and strong positive correlation between CO2 and tempature. To my opponent's arguments struggle as much as you need against scientific data. Thanks for the debate. Sources 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.24
      climate: 9.28
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
      real: 6.64
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.92)
  • PRO

    While the entire world needs to reduce their carbon...

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

    Of all contemporary political issues, there is one clear issue that stands out from all of the rest. It stands out because, unlike all other issues, it affects every single person in the world, and every single person who ever will live on this planet. Climate change is a huge problem which could potentially kill us if we don't do something to stop it [1]. Scientists are certain that climate change, at least very significantly, caused by humans [2]. As I always say when I debate religion, you can believe whatever you want, but it's ridiculous to say that the scientific consensus is wrong when you have little to no evidence. Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans, we will clearly need to change as a society. If you look at the graph of countries in source [3], you will see that the US and China are really close in terms of emissions, but are clearly ahead of other countries. However, China has 4.3 times as many people as the US. So, the average American will emit about 4 times as much carbon as the average Chinese person. That is disgusting. While the entire world needs to reduce their carbon emissions, the US needs to change the most. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get 3 million people to change the way they live their lives. That is why the government needs to do something. Now, even though the debate is whether or not the government should do something, it wouldn't do the debate any justice to neglect to talk about what the government could do. First of all, the government could instill a major tax on paper and plastic shopping bags. Paper bags kill countless trees and require huge amounts of energy to produce. Plastic bags obviously are made from oil and they don't biodegrade, so they get in our waterways and do bad things, as you've no doubt seen. Both paper and plastic bags are bad [4]. There is already a movement among environmentally conscious people in which they shop using reusable canvas bags. Those are much more sustainable for the environment, and if paper and plastic bags weren't free anymore, people would be much more inclined to bring their own, or at the very least reuse their old bags. Also, the government could tax big businesses which do not take initiative in protecting the environment. This is a straightforward and easy way to force businesses to care. Lastly (or at least the last one I will mention in this argument), the government could do simple things, such as not allowing offshore drilling. Yes, offshore drilling will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But our dependence on foreign oil would also be reduced if we simply educed our dependence on oil. It is absolutely ridiculous how much oil we use in the US. We are only home to about 4.5% of the world's population, yet we consume almost a quarter of the oil [5]. That is absolutely ridiculous. We may slam China for being inconsiderate of the environment, so much so that we forget that we are as bad as they are, or way worse per capita. The US is absolutely horrible in terms of environmental protection, and 3 million people won't change spontaneously, at least, not before it's too late. That is why we need the government to get involved now. We don't want it to be too late. I am looking forward to your response! 1. No, I am not just playing in to media hype. Here is an excellent website spelling out exactly how it will kill us, brought to you by our very own EPA: http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.epa.gov... "Scientists know with virtual certainty that:..." 3. http://www.epa.gov... 4. http://www.reusablebags.com... 5. http://www.nationmaster.com...

  • PRO

    In that case, Here is a model that measures the average...

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

    I see the point you are trying to get at is that we have no evidence, As far as current effects are, Focusing more on the questionability of prediction models. In that case, Here is a model that measures the average global temperature up to 2018. It's clear from the graph that the global temperature is increasing at an exponential rate: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ But as for your skepticism on the weight that our civilization takes for the problem of climate change, Here also is a graph showing the CO2 levels in the air throughout the 1980s, To the year 2017: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ Notice that despite the larger timeframes between the two graphs, Both correlate. Around the point were CO2 emissions go up, The temperature for the corresponding year also goes up. I think it's obvious that this drastic rise in CO2 is our fault, Considering the first graph starts to show the temperature rise in the 1860s, The tail end of the industrial revolution.

    • 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: 23.20
      climate: 11.43
      conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 5.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 7.49
      conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
      real: 4.27
      conclusion: 3.93 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.55)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.84)
  • PRO

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. ... Should...

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.17
      climate: 10.47
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 8.35
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.14)
      real: 4.35
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.79)
  • PRO

    Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./8/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.17
      climate: 9.26
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.05)
      change: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)
      real: 6.59
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.68)

CON

  • CON

    Yes, some have been true and false. ... Yes, again some...

    Global Warming is Real

    Consensus? Many climate scientists don't agree with climate change as the 97% is total BS. And there are petitions being signed to say people aren't causing global warming. No, you dumb nut, it went UP 50%. It was 100%, now it's 150%. It grew by half of its volume. You don't get the point. Yes, some have been true and false. But the majority have been wrong. Again, "you don't get the point". Yes, again some have been right and wrong. But the majority have been wrong. I proved that there is a higher chance that global warming ISN'T CAUSED BY HUMANS. That's the main issue. Humans making climate change. I also showed you that it probably doesn't exist at all with the icecaps.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real/11/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.18
      climate: 9.50
      premises: 8.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.73)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 4.39
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)
      real: 8.29
      conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)
  • CON

    Do not bring any mention of religion into this debate....

    Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change

    Do not bring any mention of religion into this debate. This debate is about Climate change. 2. The United States Consitution does not allow the President to force homeowners to purchase Solar panels. It should be left up to the individual states. As I told you before, read the Constitution. 3. Who has the money to purchase a Tesla? A Tesla Model S according to its website would cost up to 69,000 dollars. Even with incentives and Tax Credits, 60,000 dollars. So are you going to force a family in poverty to buy one ? A Nissan Leaf would be more cheaper. If it does not stop in the middle of the road. 4 .My opponent asserts that if we spend all this money on solar panels and such, global warming will eventually stop and the economy will prosper. Solyndra was a company that created solar panels. According to Bloomberg Magazine, Solyndra received 535 million dollars in Government loans. Our Taxpayer dollars. Then, Solyndra went bankrupt. All our Taxpayer dollars went down the drain. Those dollars could have been used to improve the economy. 5. How many jobs will be created ? The Keystone Pipeline will bring thousands of Jobs. Solar Panels, not sure.

  • CON

    The increased hurricane activity over the past decade...

    Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!

    I disagree with my opponent's assertion. The following information will prove that global warming is a false theory. 1. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4"F is within the +/- 5"F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990. 2. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. 3. The increased hurricane activity over the past decade (1995-2005), including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005. 4. The general consensus that the earth has warmed during the 20th century is based upon flawed temperature measurements. These measurements, taken from surface monitoring stations set up by the National Weather Service (NWS), are often contaminated by the "heat island effect." According to a Mar. 2009 study published by the Heartland Institute, 89% of NWS monitoring stations are too close to artificial heat sources such as large asphalt parking lots, air conditioners, heaters and other sources of artificial heat. 5. Theories of naturally caused climate change are often ignored by "mainstream" scientists and organizations because many research scientists are more interested in maintainining the flow of federal grant money for climate change research than in questioning the basic theory of human causation. From 1998-2009, nearly $25 billion in federal funds was allocated for climate science research. Researchers who question human-induced climate change often do not receive grant money for research projects. Your turn. Sources: 1. Arthur B. Robinson, PhD, et al., "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" (3 MB) , Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2007 2. Willie Soon, PhD, and Sallie Baliunas, PhD, "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years" (660 KB) , Climate Research, 2003 3. Anders Moberg, PhD, et al., "Highly Variable Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Reconstructed From Low and High Resolution Proxy Data," Nature, Feb. 2005 I will have a more complete source list in the comments section.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real-and-is-Manmade/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.86
      climate: 9.32
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 4.26
      premises: 3.89 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.51)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)
      real: 8.28
      conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.84)
  • CON

    At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said...

    Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

    Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate. My opponent’s arguments rely on three main contentions: 1) Global warming is real and is a threat 2) Global warming is caused by human activity 3) We should attempt to stop global warming I will refute them as follows: 1. Global warming is real and a threat My opponent’s main point here is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world, sea level rise isn’t happening at all. The IPCC’s data claiming massive sea level rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007, the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there are not rising [1]. My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming. For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland’s productivity rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history, the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2]. My opponents other point here is the reality of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since 1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the El Niño year in 1998 (which ‘refutes’ the global warming stopped theory) shows no change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3]. 2. Humans are the cause of global warming This is the main contention of the debate; if it is awful, but natural, we can’t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless. If it is still happening but is natural, we can’t stop it and changing would, again, be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause global warming is illogical. First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good economy. After the 1940’s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4]. Either way, my opponent has only assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself that we are the cause. Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an 0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it. Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of geologists—about 50%—believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming is right on time [6]. Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming, although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit. 3. It should be stopped—specifically with green energy If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears. However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list: a) Wind power There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing, and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free. Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality. Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents—a food source for many predators—get killed trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction often times shrinks the overall benefit. b) Solar Potential market chare for solar has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies on—because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor it—costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue: “Solar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition.”[7] Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products. Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic, in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of those solar plants. c) Hydro Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations. The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then other fossil fuels. d) Case study: Michigan There has been no net job growth because of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase. Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8]. CONCLUSION: I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green. (longest url's shortened to make room) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://www.stanford.edu... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.heritage.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Taking-a-Stand-Against-Climate-Change-with-Greener-Technologies/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.76
      climate: 11.02
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)
      change: 8.27
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
      real: 2.47
      premises: 2.16 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.69)
  • CON

    I have argued against Anthropogenic Global Warming,...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    I will point out the flaws in Mr. Merrill's arguments: This debate is entitled: "Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community" To that end, Mr. Merrill offered a simple challenge, but no definitions or ground rules for the debate. Because of that failure I offered definitions to clear up the "Anthropogenic Global Warming v. Global Warming" debate, and offered some of the arguments of AGW Alarmist and several Sources that argue against those claims. The rest of Mr. Merrill's writings largely ignore the argument, taking us from 20 points of contention to only 2. I then thoroughly deal with those 2 points of contention in Round 2, and reintroduce one previous point from Round 1, because Mr. Merrill did not address it. In Round 3, Mr. Merrill then, admittedly, misrepresents some data while dealing, again, with only 2 points of contention. Seeing Mr. Merrill's unwillingness to deal with the great many issues affronting AGW Alarmists, I provide several links that deal with his original claims; there being a lack of support for AGW Denial, and I reiterate one specific point of contention, and then deal with 22 of his specific claims. Mr. Merrill then changes tactic and provides some excuses as an attempt to deal with the Politicization of Climate Science. Mr. Merrill also provides 8 sourced quotes from AGW Alarmists/Activists. I replied with 9 sourced quotes of AGW Deniers and I point out a group of 13 ACTIVIST Scientists, 8 of whom worked on the report for the IPCC, and I gave a list of 10 Scientists who have left various groups (including the IPCC) over AGW "Science". Mr. Merrill does not deal with any of what was presented in Round 4, but instead, in Round 5, opts to try to convince the audience; using logical fallacies and confusing the definitions of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming. I believe I have show there is great support for Climate Denial in the scientific community; that the AWG Alarmist community is corrupted by politics and activism. Mr. Merrill wanted a 20:1 ratio of scientists; AGW Supporters v. Deniers. Someone would have to verify the actual count and remove the duplicates from all sources, as they undoubtedly contained duplicate researchers, but lets just make this easy: Mr. Merrill started out with 25 AWG supporting sources with a total of about 200 Authors. This is an average of 8 AWG Supporting Scientists per source. In a sample of 21 of my links (from Round 2), I found 29 peer reviewed papers including about 150 authors, for an average of about 7 authors per paper. This nets nearly a 1:1 (8:7) ratio of scientists who do and do not support AGW. Based on that alone I met and beat Mr. Merrill's challenge. This only leaves Mr. Merrill to deal with the 20 points of contention, of which he only tries to deal with 5. I believe I understand why Mr. Merrill refuses to deal with all the points of contention, or any of the support for natural and normal Global Warming: In the 4th round, I provide an additional link to this peer reviewed study, http://oss.sagepub.com... , which shows that a great many scientists are skeptical of AGW (I did not use this in my assessment of the 21 links in Round 2). I already pointed out how Mr. Merrill failed to deal with ANY points made in the 4th round. Therefore, the only conclusion I can make is; the support just isn't there in the quantity (and/or quality) Mr. Merrill would like or need to prove his assertions. In other words, his lack of dealing with the points of contention is proof his original assertion is wrong. Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, I was not arguing against Global Warming, as he asserts (Logical Fallacy: Straw Man). As I presented, Global Warming is a natural and normal process that we experience coming out of the last Ice Age (we are in an Intraglacial period, which Mr. Merrill also ignores). I have argued against Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Science Alarmism and Activism. I have provided an abundant number of sources against it, including several links to the data itself. And a great many scientists who are "AGW Deniers" simply by doing research that denies the Establishment's supposed "consensus". Review of the Points of Contention: Mr. Merrill claims: There is little support in the scientific community for AGW Denial: Claim proven false. CO2 causes Atmosphere warming: Claim proven false; Warming precedes CO2. Ozone: Ozone is repairing, not causing AGW. CO2 is warming the Oceans: Claim is Unclear, but the evidence, as provided, isn't showing Oceanic Warming. There is no Alarmism or Activism in the Climate Science Community: Claim proven false. Claims Mr. Merrill does not deal with: CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are today: Claim proven. CO2 levels are beneficial: Claim proven. Earth has natural mechanisms for dealing with increased CO2: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Cyclones: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Wildfires: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Arctic or Antarctic ice: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Polar Bears: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Sea Level: Claim proven. Climate Change is normal and natural: Claim appears to have been proven. There is a difference between "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and "Global Warming": Point proven. There is no "consensus" among scientists on this subject, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There is uncertainty, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There are other theories, largely ignored, for the observed Global Warming: Point proven. The rest of Mr. Merrill's Round 5 post was a poorly formatted table, where he, again, misrepresents the data, for instance: Example 1: Organization: heartland.org Authors / Researchers: 1 Scientific Accreditation: N AGW Acknowledgement: Y Heartland is a strong opponent of AGW, and proponent of Natural and Normal Global Warming. Therefore they do not "acknowledge" AGW. Did Mr. Merrill misread? Example 2: Organization: National Interagency Fire Center Authors / Researchers: Organization Scientific Accreditation: Established AGW Acknowledgement: Off Topic Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, this is very much "on topic" as the claim by the IPCC and Climate Alarmists is how AGW will make conditions more amenable to more fires that do more damage. The Observations do not support this conclusion. And the list goes on. I estimate I have about 2000 characters left in this reply, but I will not torture the readers with a full accounting of Mr. Merrill's latest attempt to avoid the discussion. This list as provided shows one of Mr. Merrill's greatest flaws: he takes things in a vacuum. Each point, in and of itself, is NOTHING without the rest of the information provided. For Example: CO2 concentrations are increasing. History must be observed: what has happened in the past? Has CO2 ever been this high? Does CO2 cause warming, or does CO2 come after the warming? Biosphere reactions must be observed: what happens when CO2 increases? What happens to plants? What happens to animals? What happens to the atmosphere? What happens to the oceans? Yet, with each point of contention that Mr. Merrill attempted to deal with, he is unwilling or unable to take into account all the information available. Therefore his arguments are very narrow in scope and shallow in content. In any case, Mr. Merrill, it is unfortunate that you spent most of your 50,000 characters avoiding the discussion. I was hoping to see new evidences, new information; and I was really hoping for a detailed and supported argument about the lack of support for AGW. Instead, I find myself disappointed by the avoidance, the abundance of Logical Fallacies, the lack of an actual argument, and the failure to follow good debating decorum. Good luck to you in whatever further arguments you decide to undertake; from my experience here, you are going to need it.

  • CON

    Although there has been some attention focussed on the...

    Protests have drawn attention to climate issues

    Although there has been some attention focussed on the Camp for Climate Change the main press 'attraction' has been the protests outside bank and the antipathy towards city workers and capitalism in general. As usual the sensationalist press wants to cover violence rather than peaceful protest and with scuffles breaking out at Bank the climate protestors efforts have been overshadowed.

  • CON

    If you listen he tells you of other developments, like...

    Global Warming is real

    I refer back to 2nd link of temperatures staying the same, it shows a more expanded view of temperatures up to 2010 2.I refer back to the linked video but here's the fallow up video that would explain allot of your questions. If you listen he tells you of other developments, like how, yes, arctic ice seems to be melting but Antarctic ice sheet is growing. I'll restate this here, its not that climate "change" is not real, it is global "warming" is simply not happening anymore and were currently facing a global cooling. Fallow up video: - Antartic sheet expanding Sources: http://nsidc.org... http://www.csmonitor.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-real/7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.20
      climate: 6.45
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.66 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.11)
      change: 3.32
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.11)
      real: 11.43
      conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.16 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.76)
  • CON

    Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    "In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature" This statement is false. In the graph of graph of 450000 years and the graph of 1850-present the relationship between CO2 is different. What's different is that CO2 and temperature start rising simultaneously when before they didn't. It's also interesting to note that the"unimportant" perfluorotributylamine gas started to be produced in the Mid-20th century is only a decade or two off of the time when global temperatures started rising more drastically. The last peak is actually quite different. It shows that the temperature started to rise less rapidly and then it suddenly started rising at a much higher rate when you look at it closer up in the 2nd graph. "The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation." Actually this graph is not pure speculation. This graph was created from data taken from a supercomputer which modeled the climate using all available knowledge. So it should be taken quite seriously. In addition the red line so closely following the actual temperature is good evidence that it is not pure fiction or speculation and is actually likely to be quite reliable.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.11
      climate: 13.47
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)
      change: 7.30
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
  • CON

    This is a severe misconception, It doesn’t require an...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    On the IPCC I have been provided no actual evidence for the IPCC evaluating the sources I used prior to the data’s submission. This will remain a red herring until you can prove that the IPCC must analyze all climate change information information before it’s published. It would also be acceptable if you prove they analyzed the data I used as sources. His two sources (listed in the comments) agree that they analyze all their own data before they submit it, But that much is obvious. He has so far provided 2 sources, Both which contradict him in several areas, And support my own position (that the IPCC is not relevant to NASA’s data collection system(s)). [8][9] – His sources, In comments Rebuttal Con presents Murry Salby without actually listing a paper, Quote, Or citation. This is an argument from authority and irrelevant to me. If you are going to state someone refutes something, Show his research and papers specifically that you believe supports such an assertion. Quote: “It"s not just that man-made emissions don"t control the climate, They don"t even control global CO2 levels. ” This is a severe misconception, It doesn’t require an expansive amount of increase to offset the natural balance of the global carbon cycle. Altough our output of 25-30 gigatons of CO2 is tiny relative to the 750 gigatons moving through the Oceans, It will add up because the land cannot properly absorb this additional CO2 naturally. Because of the above, The current CO2 levels are at the highest level in 15-20 million years. [7] Quote: “CO2 variations do not correlate with man-made emissions. Peaks and falls correlate with hot years (e. G. 1998) and cold years (1991-92). ” I never denied yearly fluctuations, But the mean temperature is increasing drastically and has been since the industrial revolution. On rising sea levels All the worlds oceans are connected, But sea level is influenced by things such as gravity, Currents, And wind. There is also, The fact that land also shifts gradually over time. The truth is that Japan has seen sea level rise, Just less extreme comparative to some other continents. There are several islands that have just completely disappeared in Micronesia. This is a simple proof that sea level is rising, And that islands are decreasing in size. Depending on the height of the island, These changes will be more noticeable/extreme. Defense Quote: “Muana Loa is a volcano. Thus, Could you trust a CO2 measurement taken from the top of a volcano? ” Go to the next tab over, The Global averages – that was the intended source. In defense of NASA I would imagine the sun is the only driver of the Earth’s climate, Isn’t that blatantly obvious? The greenhouse effect is where radiation (from the sun) is reflected by the atmosphere. Without the Sun we wouldn’t be alive, So I presume the article was just removed due to it being misleading. “NASA Science said things like clouds, Albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2. ” Perhaps, But this isn’t likely, Especially if we continue the exponential increase of our CO2 production. This is what I mean by misleading, It’s possible certainly, But nothing we should rely upon to save us. Sources on profile

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.00
      climate: 18.71
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 5.88 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 2.05
      premises: 1.68 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    This all i have to say to win here. ... Look at the...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    This all i have to say to win here. Look at the evidence by real scientists, Credible sources, It all backs me up, There, I won

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.94
      climate: 9.24
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
      real: 4.37
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.89)