Any source
Pro vs. con view
824 arguments retrieved in 88.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down...

    Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

    WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power. To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe. And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES. My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol ) So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ? 1) Contraceptions are free and widely available 2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also ) 3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education. 4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle ) Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" .... "Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol check out these links http://cgge.aag.org... It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact http://www.childtrends.org... this deals with children of educated parents research http://www.nytimes.com... psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Population-control-MUST-be-part-of-climate-change-sustainable-policies/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.94
      climate: 12.49
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.70 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.98)
      sourceText: 1.16 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.95)
      change: 8.23
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.95)
      real: 1.22
      premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)
  • PRO

    Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than...

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

    Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than on climate change.note am a new debator

  • PRO

    Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely...

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

    Maurice You still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem. 2. Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see: https://skepticalscience.com...; 3. Sea levels. This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources. (#4 doesn't exist for some reason) 5. Appeal to authority. Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org...; Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr????" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it. Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this. CONCLUSION I strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.

  • PRO

    You know what 1850 was? ... I will leave you to suppose...

    Global Warming is real, get over it.

    "You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring." Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'. "The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS)" I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... "Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven." The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works. I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-real-get-over-it./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.66
      climate: 9.58
      premises: 8.36 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.74)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 4.58
      premises: 4.20 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)
      real: 7.50
      conclusion: 7.20 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)
  • PRO

    Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources....

    ManBearPig is real.

    Round two arguments Picture of consensus studies. [2] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [2] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [3] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [4] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [5] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [6] Human fingerprint picture. [7] 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. A person may ask, but is there not natural sources of Co2? Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources. Meaning nature is a net sink of Co2. This can be seen by more Co2 going into the ocean than out and the resulting ocean acidification. Sources 2. https://skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.climatecentral.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov... 5. https://skepticalscience.com... 6. https://skepticalscience.com... 7. https://skepticalscience.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/ManBearPig-is-real./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.61
      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: 4.07
      premises: 3.72 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
      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

    And even if it did, progress would be too slow. ......

    Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

    You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. The impact of recycling simply is not that great on the tree farming industry. Even recycled paper requires a certain amount of new pulp to be added. As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. I was saying that with the rising demand, the amount of trees would either slowly grow, or at least stay neutral. 2. Onto the subject of natural forests v. farmed forests. A. When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment. B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. C. Cutting down forests will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they use, if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. E. If more soil erodes, then there will be less trees/plants. Farmed forests do not have the developed root system to prevent this. Erosion leads to less land for plants/trees to grow on, which means the forest will be using up less carbon dioxide (and therefore less beneficial to the environment). F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. 2. I don't think you understood me, so here I go: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. B. These countries tend not to replant the forests, and if they do not recycle, they will simply cut down more and more. C. Recycling is the key to protecting these developed native forests. These forests also have great amounts of plant life that will be lost if the trees are cut down. The loss of all these plants/trees is bad for the environment, and this clear-cutting will create a sort of desert, one where erosion occurs, and it becomes even more difficult to replant. Continuation of 2. : Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. I never said that commercial forests do nothing for the environment, simply that established forests do more, and you have not been able to refute this. You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved. 3. Recycling is cheaper than manufacturing A. Recycling is simply cheaper than manufacturing. Commercial forests require massive amounts of fertilizer and water. This costs a great deal of money, as well, these commercial forests must have their wood transported as well, and then processed. B. [What you say the recycling process is: Recycling is a manufacturing process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage it] Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. D. Also in your refutation, you say that commercial trees use up more carbon dioxide. I have already refuted this, but I shall again. When cut down, the capacity for these commercial trees to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen is reduced. That means that for a substantial part of the year they will have limited use in regulating carbon dioxide. As well, you claim that they will use up more carbon dioxide as they are growing, but you fail to recognize that old forests are constantly growing as well. E. (applies to D.) Recycling as I've said, will increase efficiency and preserve old, important forests. Most of these countries don't have room for giant tree farms, and recycling is a must, or we'll see the end of the massive forests which truly regulate carbon dioxide. Final: First of all, there's no reason to be rude. And let me say that it's been a good intelligent debate, better than what I see on most sites. Now onto my points, what I was saying previously was that you were not really calculating the costs of not recycling in other countries, particularly those without commercial tree farming. And as I've already explained, it really isn't that hard for countries to recycle (it's far less demanding than most regualtions placed), recycling IS cheaper than growing new trees. That's what will count in poor countries, the lower cost. Finally, I included the voting thing because I'm a policy debater, and it's kind of a habit (in my state there's some damn lazy judges, you've got to do their thinking for them). And honestly, I'm not following any sort of pious superstition, I'm looking at reality, I'm looking at the facts.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Recycling-paper-is-a-good-way-to-fight-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.39
      climate: 12.31
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 8.96
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 1.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded...

    Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

    The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. = 1. The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 2. The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles 3. It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade./Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 1. It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. 2. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. 3. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. 4. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier. 1. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth"s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century. 1. Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago. The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. 1. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 2. Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high. 3. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. 1. I already refuted this before. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth"s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 1. Already refuted this 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Most of global warming is completely natural. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA 1. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 2. Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 3. A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. ["] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 4. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 5. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 3. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years"two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we"ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions," - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia"s Center for Climate and Life 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don"t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that"s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it"s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it"s not solar." - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration"s Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Rest in comments section.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Man-Made-Global-Warming-Isnt-Real/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 21.37
      climate: 9.13
      premises: 7.89 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 3.10
      premises: 2.74 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.06)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.94)
      real: 9.14
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.52 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.96)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.87)
  • PRO

    My opponent appears to think that whether the IPCC is a...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    I have clearly stated that the IPCC is a communist organisation to which my opponent has not offered any counter argument. Thus, We can only assume that my opponent agrees with this statement thus far. My opponent appears to think that whether the IPCC is a communist organisation or not is relevant to the debate. My opponent should note that when participating in a debate all the items in the first round should be addressed. It is up to the judges of the debate to decide if any part of the debate is irrelevant and it is not part of con's duty or responsibility to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. This is because the IPCC is an untrustworthy organisation which has political agendas which have nothing to do with climate. Thus, If they are using climate as a tool of political manipulation then, This should be addressed as important evidence. Just because my opponent can't see any structure in my first round doesn't imply that there is no structure. Of course, It would be of great advantage to my opponent if he could eliminate the IPCC from the debate because the IPCC has a very bad record of corruption and supplying misinformation about the My opponent appears to think that whether the IPCC is a communist organisation or not is relevant to the debate. My opponent should note that when participating in a debate all the items in the first round should be addressed. It is up to the judges of the debate to decide if any part of the debate is irrelevant and it is not part of con's duty or responsibility to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. This is because the IPCC is an untrustworthy organisation which has political agendas which have nothing to do with climate. Thus, If they are using climate as a tool of political manipulation then, This should be addressed as important evidence. Just because my opponent can't see any structure in my first round doesn't imply that there is no structure. Of course, It would be of great advantage to my opponent if he could eliminate the IPCC from the debate because the IPCC has a very bad record of corruption and supplying misinformation about the climate. Thus, My opponent would very much rather not discuss the IPCC for these very reasons.

  • PRO

    1] Why were the predictions so confident back then. ......

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

    Thanks to Con for accepting this debate. The resolution covers many issues, and that will make it difficult to discuss comprehensively. The virtue is that it exposes how many assumptions are stacked to get to the present policies of heavily subsidizing uneconomic green energy and discouraging the exploitation of fossil fuels. 1. Increasing warmth and CO2 are most likely beneficial The average temperature of the earth has risen about 1 degree C in the past hundred years. [1] The earth was much warmer than the present during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) about a thousand years ago. [2] That's when Greenland was actually green and grapes grew in Scotland. The MWP was a prosperous time in human history because the growing season was longer in the temperate zone. Temperatures were warmer still during the Holocene Maximum, 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. That is when the great civilizations of the world began in China, India, and the Middle East. It was another very prosperous time. Going back in geological time, earth is currently none of the lowest points of both temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [3] The current average global temperature is about 14.5 C (58 F). [4] For most of the period of the evolution of life forms, average global temperature was around 22 C. Life flourished. CO2 levels are now around 380 ppm, less than a tenth of early levels. [3] The main depletion of CO2 is from the microscopic skeletons of plankton capturing the CO2 in carbonates which end up in limestone at the bottoms of the oceans. Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively starved. Commercial greenhouse operators artificially raise CO2 to about double current atmospheric levels, There are a few exceptions, but nearly all plant species grow faster at higher CO2 levels. This fact is supported a vast number of peer reviewed studies. More plant growth means more food, and that's good. Humans adapt much more readily to warmer climates than cold. [6] That's apparent from the distribution of human populations. The same is true of animal species. Of course, there are extremes that cannot be tolerated, but the climate change controversy is mostly about CO2 causing changes of 1 - 4 degrees C. Warmer is better. The largest disadvantage of warmth is the rise in sea level. The latest IPCC report predicts and expected rise of nine inches in the next hundred years. 2. Climate predictions are unreliable The global warming panic peaked around 2000, when confident predictions were made that the world would fry by the year 2010. In the decade since then, the world has actually cooled. [1] Why were the predictions so confident back then. The logic was as follows: (a) the earth warmed substantially from 1980 to 2000, (b) CO2 increased during that period, (c) all other factors affecting climate had been accounted for -- it wasn't the sun, volcanoes, changes in the earth orbit or anything else, (d) therefore CO2 caused the warming. The physics of CO2 alone did not explain the warming, so a multiplying effect was hypothesized and the multiplier was found to be high. About two-dozen computer models using various models built on the same principles were used to predict the decade of 2001-2010. What actually occurred was below the error band of all the model predictions. [7] One factor that was omitted was the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a roughly-60 year cycle that peaked in the 1880s, 1930s, and 2000s, producing widespread melting of Arctic Ice at each peak. Taking the PDO into account, many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling. [7. 8] Last month, I attended a pitch for M.I.T.'s new effort to rebuild climate science into something reliable. [9] The prof started by saying, "I just returned from a week-long conference at Princeton. We all agreed on two things: the troposphere is warming, and we don't know why." For example, a critical element in climate models is the rate of energy transfer between the ocean surface and the atmosphere. Recent work suggests the previous assumptions are off by a factor of ten or twenty. There are many other known deficiencies. Because climate models have been proven wrong, and wrong in the direction of wildly exaggerating CO2 effects, they should not be used a basis for public policy. We should continue research until the models prove reliable. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect Let's suppose for a moment that CO2 alarmists are correct in worrying about CO2 increases. China has 23% of the CO2 emissions, the us 18%. However, the Chinese are increasing consumption at 11% per year, while the US is about stable. World consumption is growing at 5.6%, with most of the growth in developing countries. Per capita consumption in China is a quarter that of the US. India is about 1/30. There is no possibility that China, India, and the developing world are going to stay in poverty over fear of global warming. Let's suppose the US cut it's CO2 emissions in half. Because the US population centers cover a large area, transportation needs are much greater than countries where the population is concentrated, so its a lot harder to cut energy use. If the US cut by half, India and China can be expected to grow rapidly. Their populations are now about eight times that of the US, their populations are growing faster, and they want to to advance their standard of living to US levels. The US's 18% of emissions will probably be less than 6% of the world total in 50 years. If we took drastic cuts, it might be 3%. Temperature is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. If the temperature rise were 1 degree, our policy of draconian cuts would be reduce the rise by 0.026 degree, That's negligible. There is no point in it. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Any measure that reduces CO2 and also cuts costs will be adopted by free markets independent of government policy. For example, fluorescent light bulbs and hybrid cars save money, so people are adopting them without a government policy forcing it. Forcing it costs an enormous amount of money. For example, there are 250 million passenger cars in the US. Replacing them with $25K hybrid vehicles would cost That's $6,5 trillion. Going to $40K electric cars would be $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace all the power plants in the country, times about six. The UX needs about 900,000 megawatt. [12] A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. [13] A green energy upgrade would be about $18 trillion. On the other side of the ledger, the US has about $300 trillion worth of fossil fuels that would become worthless. [14] The GDP is $14 trillion. We cannot afford the costs, so the policy would fail. --------------------- 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk... 2. http://www.geocraft.com... 3. http://www.geocraft.com... 4. http://www.currentresults.com... 5, http://www.co2science.org... 6. http://anthro.palomar.edu... 7. http://clivebest.com... 8. http://notrickszone.com... 9. http://paoc2001.mit.edu... 10. http://www.thegwpf.org... 11. http://factspluslogic.com... 12. http://www.eia.gov... 13. http://www.jsonline.com... 14. http://factspluslogic.com...

  • PRO

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

CON

  • CON

    My opponent has been a no-show, probably due to being...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    My opponent has been a no-show, probably due to being called out for his plagiarism. And now, I leave you with a YouTube video to watch, mostly because I want to test this new debate.org feature. http://www.youtube.com...

  • CON

    How can it be a third wish if I haven’t had a first and...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    Since my opponent has not questioned my argument, it stands. And now, a story: An elderly man was sitting alone on a dark path. He wasn't sure of which direction to go, and he'd forgotten both where he was traveling to...and who he was. He'd sat down for a moment to rest his weary legs, and suddenly looked up to see an elderly woman before him. She grinned toothlessly and with a cackle, spoke: "Now your third wish. What will it be?" "Third wish?" The man was baffled. "How can it be a third wish if I haven’t had a first and second wish?" "You’ve had two wishes already," the hag said, "but your second wish was for me to return everything to the way it was before you had made your first wish. That’s why you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes." She cackled at the poor man. "So it is that you have one wish left." "All right," he said hesitantly, "I don't believe this, but there's no harm in trying. I wish to know who I am." "Funny," said the old woman as she granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish..." -Anonymous

  • CON

    My opponent has made no attempt to respond to my points...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    My opponent has made no attempt to respond to my points and has thus forfeited this round to me, I win the debate!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.67
      climate: 11.37
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 9.16
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    Actually that was just acceptance, and this was my way of accepting the debate. Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now? Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. {1} None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. {2} In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. {3} This Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now? Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. {1} None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. {2} In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. {3} This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. {4} Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2, {5} the global temparture can only increase by 0.0013% as a result of CO2 emmissions. Mathmatically speaking, it makes no sense that such a small influence on the atmosphere can cause gobal warming. And look at this graph: The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. {1}. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... {2}. http://www.longrangeweather.com... {3}. http://www.newsmax.com... {4}. https://www.nasa.gov... {5}. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.67
      climate: 11.37
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 9.16
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • CON

    The propaganda issued by the IPCC in respect to 97% of...

    The political science of climate change

    The propaganda issued by the IPCC in respect to 97% of scientists believing in AGW is nothing but a very successful attempt to strike fear into gullible people so they will fall in line willingly with Agenda 21. This is the science of creating green guilt, nothing more. Global warming is a term used by the modern eugenicists to reduce the population of people they see as fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers, aka Americans. Meanwhile they transfer American wealth to overpopulated countries in the name of humanitarianism, while the middle class in America gets destroyed. AGW believers are nothing but minions of the globalist elite who are using their wealth to suffocate freedom so they can have the very small population of elitists they so desire. Are you on board with Agenda 21?

  • CON

    CA3) Sources of data, bias For sources of data see [3],...

    Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

    I also thank my opponent for debating me on such an interesting scientific topic. I hope it will be not just entertain, but also educate readers about facts they may not know. I thank Pro for giving the link to comment section, so in a good faith I will interpret his definitions in context of what was said there. I offered not to use Climategate leaks and similar arguments so I encourage voters to look there before blaming me of not using some types of relevant arguments in this debate. I can discuss corruption of GW alarmism in comments or next debate. *Clarification of rules* "attacking sources" - saying X is corrupt or funded by Y so his data are irrelevant I believe that bringing relevant evidence of specific source being obsolete, incomplete, interpreted in wrong way or scientifically not relevant does not violate the rule. *Foreword* Climate change and always changed. There is undeniable evidence that humans influence local microclima by means of urbanization (use of land, air conditioning, heating). The global warming being blamed on CO2 emissions which we are discussing is very different matter. I will show evidence that recent warming is caused mainly by natural phenomena and so called Global Warming Alarmism based on computer modeling of CO2 effects is falsified as a scientific hypothesis. *Con Arguments* CA1) Scientific opinions and so called scientific consensus concerning AGW There is clearly no general scientific consensus in favor of AGW as may be believed in non-academic public. Just in USA more than 30.000 scientists signed petition against it [1]. [2] cites at least 800 Peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism to AGW. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change made report [3] in 2009 which refutes most of IPCC claims. [4] and [5] show interesting ratios of scientific opinions and accelerating increase of sceptic voices in academia (even former believers in AGW). [6] express opinion of one those. On top of it, scientific consensus is no alternative for scientific method. Science is not democracy. CA2) Relevance of recent warming compared to the past Prof. Carter in his presentation [7a] from 2:42 min puts recent warming and cooling in historical context of climate change and shows statistical insignificance of recent warming. From 5:27 min he shows periodicity of natural temperature change (ice-ages, warm periods) and it is clear that recent warming fits into natural periods. Even the rate of change is examined in [7b] from 1:30 on. CA3) Sources of data, bias For sources of data see [3], chapter 3. Surface data used by IPCC is biased by "urban heat island effect" [6],[7d],[3] and many temperature sensors used clearly do not meet basic criteria at all [7d]. CA4) Sun, sun spots, fluctuations Sun is clearly major cause of climate fluctuations as can be seen in [1b],[3] chapter 5, [7c] from 7:35 min and [8]. [8] puts it in reasonably detailed while easy to understand way. CA5) Missing greenhouse signature See [3] section 3.4 Fingerprints, [6], [6b]. Model based predictions do not meet the experimental data. CA6) Ice cores data Temperature rise first, then rise CO2 levels [6]. It is clear what causes what. Rising temperature decreases solubility of CO2 in ocean [9]. Later fall in temperature shows no positive feedback. Sea cores show a more cooling lately.[7b] CA7) Computer models versus experimental data "Hockey stick graph" is not plausible, it is merely computer simulated data fitted to controversial graph of recent temperature measurements without Medieval Warming Period. See [3] subsection 3.2.1 (for quick inspection figures from 3.2.1 to 3.2.5 should not be missed, but closer inspection of subsection is advised ). *Con Refutation of Pro arguments* CR1) Greenhouse Effect CO2 has logarithmic progression of GH effect/concentration in atmosphere [7c] from 2:00 min. Experimental data show the GH effect of CO2 and even stronger GH gas as methane do not cause significant changes in global temperature. It may be because of much stronger negative feedback such as creation of clouds and others [1b],[3] sections 2.1, 2.6, [7c], [8]. CR2) Fossil fuels to be blamed As long as CO2 is not significant cause, this argument is not plausible. See CA5, CA6. CR3) Natural phenomena cannot be responsible This is directly refuted by CA2, CA4 at least. Natural phenomena are undeniably responsible for both fluctuation in global climate as well as for its stabilization by negative feedback. Natural changes of atmospheric concentration of so called GH gases are not only possible cause of climate temperature fluctuation! Graph Pro cite shows lot of natural temperature fluctuations thus refuting his own argument. CR4) Positive feedback [7c] from 3:00 on shows that predictions of alarmists rely on positive feedback. They mostly ignore important negative feedbacks like cloud formation that keeps temperature stable. See [3] page 17 citing Lindzen et al.: "the cloudy-moist region appears to act as an infrared adaptive iris that opens up and closes down the regions free of upper-level clouds, which more effectively permit infrared cooling, in such a manner as to resist changes in tropical surface temperature."; "more than cancel all the positive feedbacks in the more sensitive current climate models". Se also [8] or [3] whole section 2.1 for more details. On top of that, if a positive feedback was prevalent, our ecosystem would not be stable and our climate would go crazy in past temperature fluctuations. *Conclusion* My opponent presented somewhat simplified view about climate science. He relies on notion that greenhouse gases are almost only phenomena to be blamed for climate change. Therefore he is unaware of complex natural causes behind fluctuation and stabilization of climate temperature and rely on so called scientific consensus to back his view. As I showed this is not the case. In my view Pro's sources are very incomplete and some of them obsolete in contrast to sources presented by me. *End note* I am sorry to be very spartan in my arguments heavily consisting of citation of sources. I tried to use my limited space to introduce opponent to my sources asap so he can allocate his space in following rounds in advance for detailed debate on specific issues. I did my best to limit number of sources I needed to illustrate science behind climate change phenomena. I spent lot of time in order to cite parts of it to make it more accessible without having to go through whole source and thus saving time of my opponent and other readers. *Sources* [1] Global Warming Petition Project: http://petitionproject.org... [1b] Environmental effects... : http://www.petitionproject.org... [2] 800 Peer-reviewed papers skeptical…: http://www.populartechnology.net... [3] NIPCC report: http://www.nipccreport.org... [4] More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent...: http://epw.senate.gov... [5] Climate Momentum Shifting: http://epw.senate.gov... [6] David Evans: No smoking hot spot: http://www.theaustralian.com.au... [6b] Evidence CO2...: http://www.youtube.com... [7] Prof. Robert Carter: Is CO2 the Cause? [7a] Part I: http://www.youtube.com... [7b] Part II: http://www.youtube.com... [7c] Part III: http://www.youtube.com... [7d] Part IV: http://www.youtube.com... [8] Prof. Patterson: Sunspots...: http://www.youtube.com... [9] Oceans...: http://icecap.us...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-Is-Real/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.63
      climate: 8.80
      premises: 7.63 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.59)
      sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.98)
      change: 3.64
      premises: 3.31 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.78)
      real: 8.18
      conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.29)
  • CON

    I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.

    Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

    I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.

  • CON

    You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000...

    Cimate change is real and caused by humans

    Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase. Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming." This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2) Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. Contention 2: Earth is cooling. If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC. How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4) Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5) You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Contention 3: Artic Ice. First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus. Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now. Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7) Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity. Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9) (10) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11) Contention 4: Sea Levels Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land. The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link. Contention 5: The Weather Many Pro Warmingists claim that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. How about Tornados you may ask? In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase. Sources 1. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...) 2. (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...) 3. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) 4. (http://newsbusters.org...) 5. (http://newsbusters.org...) 6. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 7. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...) 8. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) 9. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 10. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...) 11. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 12. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 13. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 14. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Cimate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.58
      climate: 3.90
      premises: 3.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.47)
      change: 9.21
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.65)
      real: 7.47
      conclusion: 7.20 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.27 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.47)
  • CON

    There is no scientific consensus that global warming is...

    Global Warming is Real

    Well... 1. There hasn't been any global warming since 1997. - http://rightwingnews.com... 2. There is no scientific consensus that global warming There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man. - https://wattsupwiththat.com... - http://www.petitionproject.org... - http://rightwingnews.com... 3. Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. - https://www.breitbart.com... 4. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. - https://dailycaller.com... 5. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com... - http://rightwingnews.com... Some other videos: - - - Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real/11/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.47
      climate: 8.70
      premises: 7.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 3.48
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      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

    Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even...

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

    Happy to think with you today. With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why. The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect. The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude. A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed. Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on. 1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years. 2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water. 3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs. 4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us. 5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition. 6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before. 7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems. These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US. To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Fixing-the-Climate-should-be-a-Low-Priority-for-the-USA/4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.43
      climate: 16.44
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.49)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 2.04
      premises: 1.68 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
      real: 1.96
      premises: 1.70 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.65)
      sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)