args

PRO

• PRO

  Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that...

  Show full argument

  Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

  *Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of "they" until the very end! :) Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations. His first observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely has an effect on climate. His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He is correct in saying that a consensus is more scientific then a home experiment but a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus. My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim. I run into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence. (keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong with the models. In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect. My opponent then says, "my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane. My opponent also says there is an undoubted correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007). As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time, Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Then, in my opponents fifth point, he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural." This is just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only in the last 1000 years! Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that is what they were planning to debate. In my opponents case he just states everything that I have already disproven. He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere. He says humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...) Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease. To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or not. After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence. True evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible. In conclusion, I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Man-Made-Climate-Change-Is-Fake/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.09

    climate: 13.47

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

    premises: 3.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.63)

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

    change: 8.33

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

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)

    real: 1.29

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.79)
• PRO

  The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS...

  Show full argument

  CCS will take far too long to implement for climate change

  Rainforest Action Network, an environmental non-profit organization, stated the following in a fact sheet on its website titled "The Dirty Truth about Clean Coal," available at www.ran.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2009): "The concept of CCS is that we can curb climate change by capturing the emissions from coal plants and store them underground, safely away from our atmosphere for eternity. The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS technology is not likely to be a commercially viable option for at least another decade, and new coal-fired plants are slated to begin construction now. There are also no working models of CCS at a commercial-scale power plant anywhere in the world."

  • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Carbon_capture_and_storage
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.02

    climate: 13.61

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

    premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)

    change: 9.19

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

    premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.79)
• PRO

  Is Global Warming (now on GW) real or is it myth? ... The...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real.

  Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate. Is Global Warming (now on GW) real or is it myth? Rules : 1. The first round is for acceptance. No argument will be posted. 2. We are dealing with facts and evidences, here. 3. The maximum number of videos allowed to be posted per round for each user is 2 (two). 4. The maximum number of images allowed to be posted per round for each user is 5 (five).

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.96

    climate: 7.52

    premises: 6.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.31)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 3.75

    premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)

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

    real: 11.70

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.42 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.31)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.81)
• PRO

  Well, take disease - it's natural, that's a scientific...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  Far from being alarmists, scientists ground themselves in uncertainty because “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell). Politics and business reward leadership qualities, drawing fools and fanatics, while science and academia draw thinkers who question themselves. “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality” (Russell). The IPCC rightly holds that "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate” [58]. But although politics by nature is unscientific, the scientific community takes firm stances on issues that relate solely to science. “When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others” (Russell). And on that note, the IPCC continues its statement, “However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" [58] Con appears confused: “Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting,” so it seems I must rephrase with greater specificity: Con presumed that because he could provide nine links that highlight second-decimal mistakes in climate prediction (round 1), climate science itself is a mistake, not unlike presuming that because one could find nine physicists who made mathematical mistakes, astronomy itself is a mistake. This I referenced as "the fallacy fallacy," to which Con responded with incredulity [59], "this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" (round 2). . . though I am sure Con would love to believe I admitted to making a poor argument myself! To Con’s question on the Appeal to Nature fallacy, how is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Well, take disease - it's natural, that's a scientific fact. "Appealing to" that fact doesn't just mean pointing out that it's natural, it means concluding that nothing can or should be done about it. "Because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal" [30]. This is Con’s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity. I did misrepresent that temperature anomalies chart, it showed 132 years. My apologies. It showed highly fluctuating anomalies in the last 17 years. If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature. Con appreciates that my summary of source 41 conceded his point. I wrote it, I just re-read it, and I don’t know what he’s talking about. “A causes B” and “B causes A” - it’s a simple positive feedback loop. "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society" AAAS [60] This is not to be confused with political tactics like naming hurricanes after climate deniers. Science is defined by method which involves peer-review, and is not to be confused with the claims of political bloggers, activists or pundits. "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." - ACS [61] Nothing about the end of the world, just that it’s a growing threat to society - probably one of many. "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." AMS [62] The AMS view is important here, because of Con’s source that headlines, “Meteorologists are Global Warming Skeptics.” It’s a strange headline for an article whose actual content states that “According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.” Not skeptics, just not alarmists either. It’s ironic that Con is the only debate participant here who believes scientists are alarmists on this issue. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." APS [63] No threats or bargains here, nothing about whether it’s America’s fault or China’s fault, or whether this means we have to stop driving cars. This is about science, and science with a political target or without proper peer review is not science. It’s easy to find geologists who are skeptical of global warming - they’re paid to find oil, not think about its effect on the air. They don’t perform peer-reviewed research. But the Geological Society of America, speaking for the science of geology over the business of it, concurs that Global Warming is anthropogenic. "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouseR08;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." GSA [64] And the American Geophysical Union agrees, "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." - AGU [65] Sometimes the medical community even chips in: "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." - AMA [66] 58. http://t.co... 59. https://t.co... 60. http://t.co... 61. http://t.co... 62. http://t.co... 63. http://t.co... 64. http://t.co... 65. http://t.co... 66. https://t.co...

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

    BM25 score: 22.69

    climate: 18.24

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

    premises: 7.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.62)

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

    change: 3.22

    premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)

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

    real: 1.23

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.27 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.47)
• PRO

  The laws and regulations are at issue. ... There are a...

  Show full argument

  Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

  "Global climate change" means the climate effects, whatever they might be, of humans introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "US" is the United States of America. "US energy policy" in this debate means prohibitions or incentives provided by the US government with regard to the US development or use of carbon-based fuels for energy. This includes outright prohibitions on the development of oil, oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, and coal, as well as disincentives and obstacles aimed at minimizing their use. Energy policy includes subsidies and mandates for use of non-carbon alternatives. Restrictions or incentives aimed at other purposes are not a subject of this debate, nor is the funding of research projects. The US does not have an official energy policy, but it has many laws and regulations that constitute a de facto policy. The laws and regulations are at issue. A "major factor" is one that may determine a policy outcome, as distinct from factors that might either accrue as side benefits or weigh as disadvantages of a policy. Standard dictionary definitions are used, with the context used to select the appropriate definition. In this debate, "flow through sources" are allowed. If a blog, book, popular article, or Wikipedia is used as a reference, and if the data cited is referenced from another source the implication is that the original source is referenced. Sometime a blogger plots some data in a convenient form for presentation, so it's helpful to reference the graph. The data is argued from it's source. Cited opinions stand or fall on their individual merits as being authoritative or not. Reference lists or arguments beyond the debate 8000 character limits are not allowed. The first round is for acceptance and definitions. There are a total of four rounds.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-climate-change-should-not-be-a-major-factor-in-US-energy-policy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.66

    climate: 13.95

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

    premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)

    change: 8.39

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

    premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.91)
• PRO

  An independent study published the same year found that...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!

  In ROUND 1 my opponent provides us with numerous sources (primarily a list of doctors and Ph.D's with apparent expertise on the subject) that discredit the claim that global warming is happening or that it is a human created phenomenon. If we pay close attention to what these sources are saying, we'll find that they're actually arguing two different, incompatable things--revealing that my opponent isn't solidly defending exactly where elevations in surface temperature are coming from. One of his sources asserts that the gradual increase in the Earth's surface temperatures can be hocked up to "flawed temperature measurements", because of expanding cities and urban development, which traps heat; hence recordings that show an elevation in Earth's surface temperature over the years are actually showing spikes in artificial heat caused by expanding city development. His other sources argue that global warming is a natural phenomona and that the measurements of gradually rising temperatures are authentic but should be attributed to natural long-term climate patterns on Earth. From these two positions we see that my opponent is arguing that global warming is either (1) not happening, or (2) happening but not human created. In this debate I will demonstrate why the third option--global warming is happening and is manmade--is the best, most credible point-of-view, particularly in light of the multitude of scientific data [1]. The Overwhelming Majority of Climate Scientists and Climate Experts Say Global Warming is Real, Manmade In ROUND 1 my opponent cites an impressive but brief list of "experts" that claim global warming is either not real or isn't human facilitated. Here he's using the fallacy of appeal to authority to sell us his position, particularly since he's not posting any solid data (only assertions) to back up his claims. How can I possibly defend myself against his impressive (but brief) list of experts? Simple. By posting an even larger list of climate scientists and climate experts that hold the opposing view. Of course if I did only this I would be commiting the same fallacy. So I must also provide data and solid evidence to demostrate that global warming is both authentic and manmade. My opponent posted a seemingly impressive list of "experts" to show that there are scientists and capable professionals that oppose the popular view on global warming and climate change. (Some of those "experts" he cites have no qualifications in climatology and meteorology.) So how many authentic climate scientists (the ones that actually do research on this subject) believe in anthropogenic (manmade) global warming? According to the surveys and studies conducted to answer this, virtually all of them do [2][3][4]! The truth is the experts my opponent cites belong to a tiny but vocal minority (the ones that actually do research in this field, I mean). A study published in 2013 that quantified the scientific concensus on manmade global warming in scientific literature found that an overwhelming 97% of all scientific research studies that investigated the issue in some way agreed with or confirmed anthropogenic global warming [2][3]. The authors that conducted the study meticulously sifted through 12,000 research journals published over the span of decades to reach their findings [2][3]. An independent study published the same year found that 2259 peer-reviewed climate articles authored by 9136 scientists agreed with manmade global warming; only one author out of all the climate articles reviewed in that study rejected anthropogenic global warming [4]. And the world's foremost authorities on climate change--like the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), and the Japanese Metereological Agency, to name a few--all insist that global warming is real and manmade [5][6][7]. The UN's International Panel on Climate Change is by far the world's leading authority on climate change; made up of 195 member nations and consisting of 900 contributing scientists that investigate and report on the impact of a warming Earth, the panel is now 95% certain that global temperatures are rising and that humans are at fault [8][5]. Irrefutable Evidence that Global Warming is Authentic and that Humans are to Blame There is a plethora of unassailable evidence to show that global warming is real. Graphic data provided by the IPCC in one of its climate reports shows that most of the Earth's surface experienced an increase in temperature between 0.2 and 1.0 degree celsius between 1970 and 2004 (some places experienced a greater temperature increase; few places saw a temperature decrease): North America in particular has seen a dramatic increase in temperature (about 1 degree celsius) between 1955 to 2005, as depicted here (with some locations observing a more severe increase): To affirm the IPCC's data on the global temperature trend, data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) shows that with comparison to the base year 1945 (taken as the surface temperature average), temperatures have been increasing since 1910, and have been increasing more rapidly over the last 3 decades (see graph directly below) [1]. This data is consistent with other global temperature records provided by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Center [1]. Since the base year 1945, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.56 degrees celsius; since 1910, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 1.02 degrees celsius [1]. NASA shows that 2013 was the 7th warmest year on record, with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 only being hotter--and the hottest years being 2010, 2005, 2007 (in that order) [1]. Data shows no reversal in the Earth's average temperature change, toward the 1945 base year average. The Japanese Metereological Agency shows global warming data almost identical to NASA's: The NASA website has a lengthy page devoted entirely to the evidence for anthropogenic global warming [1]. Like the IPCC and the Japanese Metereological Agency, the NASA website asserts that global warming is a real phenomenon impacting the globe. And what evidence is there of this? A lot. Satellite data shows that 2012 had the lowest quantity of Artic Sea Ice on record--a shocking 3.62 million square kilometers, or less than 50% of the quantity recorded in 1980 (see graph immediately below) [1]! Since 2012, some of that Artic Sea Ice has returned, but year-to-year oscillation is to be expected. NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002" (see graph directly below) [1]. And satellite sea level measurements show oceanic sea levels rising rapidly--with the trend accelerating in the last two decades. Data from NASA missions Jason-1, Jason-2/OSTM shows oceanic sea levels rising on average 3.16 mm per year from 1993 to 2013; this is nearly twice the oceanic sea level increase from 1870 to 2000 (see graph immediately below) [1]. NASA points out that increasing sea levels is caused by two factors: "the added water coming from the melting of land ice, and the expansion of sea water as [the Earth] warms" [5]. As you can see, NASA takes the issue of global warming seriously, and the impacting effects of disappearing land and Artic Ice and rising sea levels refute the notion that global warming is only a metropolitan heat Island phenomena--one of the arguments that my opponent makes in ROUND 1. As data provided by the UN's IPCC, the Japanese Metereological Agency and NASA confirm, global surface temperatures are indeed rising. The 10 warmest years on record have occured in the last 16 years. The warmest year ever directly recorded was 2010--just four years ago [1]. The effects of global warming continue to be felt and show no sign of halting. Sea levels are rising, coastal land is disappearing, polar sea ice is vanishing, land ice is melting. And the greenhouse gas with the most radiative impact in the atmosphere--CO2--continues to be churned out at crippling levels [1]. Year after year the concentration only increases and the Earth gets hotter [1]. In ROUND 1, my opponent falsely claims that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are caused by global warming--that they do not contribute to it. These are his exact words: "Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it." But here he's being blatantly dishonest. It's a well-established scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world [9]. With the boom of the industrial revolution, which continues to expand into and dominate new countries on a yearly basis, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations. Never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high, as the graph below provided by NASA indicates [1]. This is something I will go over in the next ROUND. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...) [2] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) [3] (http://iopscience.iop.org...) [4] (http://www.policymic.com...) [5] (https://uk.news.yahoo.com...) [6] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov...) [7] (http://www.data.kishou.go.jp...) [8] (http://ipcc.ch...) [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real-and-is-Manmade/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.37

    climate: 8.46

    premises: 7.23 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.51)

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

    change: 3.11

    premises: 2.74 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.06)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)

    real: 10.80

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.52 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.96)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.84)
• PRO

  Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real

  Ok well if you really want to start this. 1. "There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man." You must not read a lot! There are a MILLION scientific facts about global warming. 2. "Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012." There, right there, you literally just proved my point that global warming is real. Arctic ice has been up to 50% when it should be up to 100%, but there, it's not. 3. Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but they have also been right over and over. Nothing you have said has disproved the giant hole in the ozone above the arctic. 4. "Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong" What predictions! There's been A LOT of predictions, some wrong, some right! Oh right, this "Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists" Yeah, you probably couldn't hear what I was saying, because you didn't disprove anything!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real/11/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.36

    climate: 8.14

    premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)

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

    change: 3.13

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

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

    real: 11.10

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.81 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)
• PRO

  That was part typo and part stupid mistake. ... 3....

  Show full argument

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

  Thank you for your response! "Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent." I certainly hope that you read my source #2 (relisted here for your convenience as source [1]). That very clearly spelled out what scientists know. The burden of proof therefore lies upon you to disprove those facts laid out by the EPA. "This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true." I bring you, again, to the EPA site that I sourced. "So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt." I have addressed both these claims. "I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently." I totally agree. Luckily I proved it. "For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic" Check your link. I find it completely unnecessary to address this argument, but I will just for fun. August of 2008, as of when this article was written, was the month that saw the fastest loss of Arctic ice in recorded history [2]. "Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact." That is an argument that I've never understood. If there is any speculation at all that humans are a major cause of global warming, shouldn't we stay on the safe side? If it turns out it wasn't caused by humans, we won't really be affected (other than maybe being a little smarter, healthier and happier), and if it is caused by humans, well, we would have saved the planet. On the other hand, if you choose not to protect the environment, if you're right then nothing will happen, but if you're wrong then you will have allowed something horrible to happen that was largely or completely preventable. We only have one planet, so we should respect it. "I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million." I apologize. That was part typo and part stupid mistake. I often argue this for Oregon, which does have approximately 3 million people. In any case, I meant to say 300 million, and that only makes my point stronger. "If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable." Time out. I never said the government should regulate their private life. The government can't do that. The reforms which I proposed were all corporate and governmental. Through availability and convenience, the people will naturally change what they do. "Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are?" Obviously they won't completely go away, I'm not an idealist. But I can guarantee you that their use will diminish very substantially. If you have to pay for every single bag you get from the grocery store, obviously people will be much more inclined to reduce and reuse. I don't think anybody could truthfully deny that. "So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly?" Taxes are the right answer. Even if they weren't, it would probably increase recycling substantially if all states had deposits on their bottled and canned beverages (I have gotten quite a bit of money returning cans and bottles). But taxing would work. And your "idea," well, see the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. "When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem." See my argument about taking initiative. "Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org......) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy." First of all, that link shows Antarctic ice. Arctic ice has decreased. Also, I really don't know what to say to those statistics, other than the fact that 2009 was an El Nino year, which affects different parts of the world differently. In the case of Antarctica, it actually cools it down a bit. Now, here is where your logical fallacy comes into place. El Nino events are caused by the heating of the East Pacific. We have seen more El Nino years than ever recently, and the only explanation for that is climate change (and that is exactly why I don't call it global warming, even though the mean temperature had steadily increased [3]). The fact is, you have very little evidence rejecting climate change, yet there is as plethora of evidence supporting it [Every single source I posted]. If you don't believe me, ask Mohammed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives, who has to handle a very unique situation. See, the country that he leads is very literally in danger of disappearing to rising sea levels [5]. "In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world." Not per capita. Yes, the whole world needs to change, but America is grossly overstepping its bounds, so it is high time that we lead the rest of the world in changing what we do. "So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not?" You seem very set in the idea that we're being "punished." It is not in any way a punishment to lead our country in doing the right thing. "And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us"." You may call them scare tactics, but, as Mohammed Nasheed or any Maldivian will tell you, unless people realize the full scope and potential of the issue, people will die. There will be very real devastating effects of climate change. You may write them off as scare tactics, but I am simply stating very blunt facts in a very blunt way, and I feel that that is warranted. I could mention that warmer oceans make more (and stronger) hurricanes and other extreme weather events [6], but I'm not going to because those are "scare tactics." I am eagerly awaiting your response! 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.treehugger.com... (look familiar?) 3. http://www.stormfax.com... 4. http://www.newscientist.com... 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 6. http://www.epa.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-American-government-should-take-an-active-role-in-stopping-climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.36

    climate: 11.85

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

    premises: 3.96 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)

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

    change: 9.23

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

    premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)

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

    real: 1.28

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.75)
• PRO

  2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change...

  Show full argument

  ManBearPig is real.

  Round two arguments Picture of consensus studies. [1] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [1] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [3] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [4] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [5] Human fingerprint picture. [6] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. Sources. 1. https://skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.climatecentral.org... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. https://skepticalscience.com... 6. https://skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/ManBearPig-is-real./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.26

    climate: 8.51

    premises: 7.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.73)

    change: 4.34

    premises: 4.02 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.73)

    real: 9.40

    conclusion: 9.05 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.89)
• PRO

  Tuscon Citizen. ... September 30th, 2010: "The alleged...

  Show full argument

  Reduced emissions from RES may have no impact on climate change

  Jonathan DuHamel. "National Renewable Energy Standard Will Mean Higher Electricity Bills." Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thereby forestall global warming (now “climate disruption”) although there is no credible evidence that reduced emissions will have a measurable effect on climate."

  • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_US_National_Renewable_Energy_Standard
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.24

    climate: 15.97

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

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)

    change: 6.09

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

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)