args

CON

• CON

  Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  Mr. Merrill's opening statement shows, rightly, what I have said and shown, multiple times, in this debate: There is uncertainty. Mr. Merrill's reply here is also a Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. He is no longer dealing with facts but opinion: ignoring the heart of the discussion; what do the FACTS, or the DATA say? "What do we KNOW", not "who agrees with whom". Uncertainty: AR5 Final Draft, Chapter 9, page 5/205: "The majority of Earth System models now include an interactive representation of aerosols... uncertainties in sulphur-cycle processes and natural sources and sinks remain and so, for example, the simulated aerosol optical depth over oceans ranges from 0.08 to 0.22 with roughly equal numbers of models over- and underestimating the satellite-estimated value of 0.12." From page 27: "By contrast, there is limited evidence that the hiatus in GMST trend has been accompanied by a slower rate of increase in ocean heat content over the depth range 0"700 m, when comparing the period 2003"2010 against 1971"2010. There is low agreement on this slowdown, since three of five analyses show a slowdown in the rate of increase while the other two show the increase continuing unabated (Section 3.2.3, Figure 3.2)." Also, from Chapter 9: "During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26"C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16"C per decade)." Where are these "uncertainties" in the final report? There is ONE: SPM-10: "There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years." Then there is Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC"s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as: Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA; Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences; Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher; Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans. Not to mention, it appears a great many of scientists are "skeptical": http://goo.gl... Secondly, a good number of scientists violate Mr. Merrill's stated ideal, "Far from being alarmists"... Many scientists are involved in AGW Alarmist Activism: Of the 13 senior scientists who put together USGCRP"s January 2013 draft report, seven have ties to activist groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund. Chair Jerry Melillo is a contributing author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Vice Chair Gary Yohe is part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Climate Witness Program. Richard Moss is a former vice president for WWF. James Buizer is on the Board of Directors of the environmental activist group Second Nature. Susanne Moser is a former staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Andrew Rosenberg is a director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Donald Weubbles is an author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). See also: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... "Con presumed that because he could provide nine links..." I'll stop you there. Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I provided several links that showed mistakes that have been made as ONE of several evidences that Climate Alarmism is wrong. "This is Con"s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. My position is, and has been, about climate alarmism. I have provided a great many links and sources that show the NATURAL variations in climate, the NATURAL responses of the earth to increased CO2 and the LACK of evidence for AGW affecting earth's climate and or being "out of the ordinary". There is no crisis. "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." I don't have to deny it. What you have engaged in is known as the Common Cause Fallacy or False Cause: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... This one has the graphs: http://goo.gl... Then Mr. Merrill provides several "proofs" by listing statements from some of the organizations that have bought in to the AGW Alarmism. Lets look at the other side and what they say: A few members of organizations like the AMS have left over the AMS's stand on AGW: http://goo.gl... A poll taken on Meteorologists show them to be skeptics: http://goo.gl... And if you don't "toe the line", you have your credentials threatened: http://goo.gl... "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." (2006) -- James Lovelock, British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion." http://goo.gl... "For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory... Recent experience with the UN"s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too." -- Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, author, "Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun)", co-authored with noted geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian L"ning. http://goo.gl... "Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!" " NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace http://goo.gl... "Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself " Climate is beyond our power to control"Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can"t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone"s permission or explaining itself." " Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. http://goo.gl... "Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences"AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." " Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lu"s Lino, -- "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency." 2009. "[The science] community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what "science" has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." " Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and he published a paper in August 2009 titled "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field." "[The global warming establishment] has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." " Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University "There is a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink" They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging... They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them... The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics"the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy." -- Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech http://goo.gl... "In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about." -- Richard Lindzen, Former UN IPCC Lead Author http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...

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

    BM25 score: 20.31

    climate: 17.85

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

    premises: 7.39 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)

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

    change: 2.19

    premises: 1.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.70)

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

  However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not...

  Show full argument

  its Bernie or bust, We are suck of moderates, WE WANT REAL CHANGE

  I like Bernie, Right now it he's the most likely to win the primary and in the general election I would vote for him over Trump a hundred times over. However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about is whether or not your guy gets in as if we were on sports teams.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/its-Bernie-or-bust-we-are-suck-of-moderates-WE-WANT-REAL-CHANGE/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 20.26

    climate: 5.92

    premises: 5.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.78 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.30)

    change: 8.84

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

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

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

    real: 5.49

    conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.64)
• CON

  Just because I don't refute a given point does not mean...

  Show full argument

  Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

  I'm not sure what the correct practice is regarding Pro placing nearly half of his R2 argument in the comments. This is the same debater who once copy and pasted arguments from another debate into one against me, so I am inclined to think this is considered bad form. Given that he/she is the one who proposed the character limit and never stated there would be exceptions made, I would urge voters to largely disqualify those portions from consideration. That all said, I will still try to address as much of their argument as possible. You will see that nearly all, if not all, of Pro's counterclaims are completely fabricated, baseless, and not rooted in any reputable sources (or any sources at all, for that matter). First and foremost, in the main part of Pro's argument, he/she does not list one single source despite making very bold claims in attempts to refute my scientific evidence. In the comments, they state that their source is "freaking TESLA. They f*cking make electric cars!!! And they say global warming isn't real!!!" Surely showing that this is in fact not the case should be sufficient in refuting Pro's statements, though I will go a bit further. All of Pro's arguments are directly copied and pasted from a Tesla forum and in no way are endorsed by the company itself. You can view that forum entry contributed by a group known as "Free Energy" here: https://goo.gl.... I will use actual, scientific facts and scholarly sources to show that Pro's counterclaims are not just unfounded but patently false. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has said, "Climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces this century," in an interview with Rolling Stone. "In the past, Musk himself has called the act of denying climate change “fraud,” and has told people, albeit jokingly, to use a thermometer if they’re unsure of the existence of global warming. Musk has never shied away from acting against the dangers that threaten the future of humanity and planet Earth." (https://goo.gl...). "Musk’s point is clear, however: climate change is real." (https://goo.gl...). Also to this point, "Tesla makes sought-after electric cars and the potential for the company to replicate this success in the heavy-duty sector is an exciting prospect for clean air and climate change." (https://goo.gl...). Further showing that Pro's claim about Tesla's stance is completely invalid and unfounded: "Electric trucks, whether manufactured by Tesla or anyone else, are essential to solving climate change and reducing air pollution. On California’s grid today, a heavy-duty electric vehicle with middle-of-the-road efficiency has 70 percent lower life cycle global warming emissions than a comparable diesel and natural gas vehicle. Electric vehicles also don’t have any tailpipe emissions of NOx, particulate matter, or other pollutants." (https://goo.gl...) This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Pro has completely fabricated his/her claims and attributed them to a single car company whose goal is actually to combat the very phenomenon Pro is claiming to not exist. By itself, this fact should result in a nearly-automatic disqualification and I could rest my case here. However, I will go on to refute just a few of Pro's outrageously outlandish and fabricated counterpoints. Just because I don't refute a given point does not mean that it would not be possible to do so, however, out of respect for voters and the integrity of this forum, I will adhere to the character limit set by Pro. "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." Official NASA data shows that average annual temperature dropped every year between 1880 and 1920. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)). I do not know where Pro's claim came from, but it is clearly false. "It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries." Scientists are also finding that glaciers reveal clues about global warming. How much does our atmosphere naturally warm up between Ice Ages? How does human activity affect climate? Because glaciers are so sensitive to temperature fluctuations accompanying climate change, direct glacier observation may help answer these questions. Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating at unprecedented rates. Some scientists attribute this massive glacial retreat to the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760. In fact, several ice caps, glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared altogether in this century. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within a matter of decades. (National Snow and Ice Data Center). There is also the article, "Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Glaciers Melting" found here: https://goo.gl..., I do not know where Pro's claim came from (certainly not Tesla), but it is also unfounded and false. "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." A study published on April 6 in the journal Science found that bottom-up ice loss is also happening, particularly in the eastern Arctic Ocean where the Atlantic Ocean is making inroads. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must (again) say that this claim is baseless and false. I should also note that Pro simply pasted this line again two points later. "Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels." There is an article titled, "The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist". It says, among other things, that carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space. "After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940." Global temperatures rose in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 (https://climate.nasa.gov...). I have no idea where this claim comes from. "There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity." - "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response." (NASA) - "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels." (NASA) - "The amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels...CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them...Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming." (https://goo.gl...) - "There is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2." (https://goo.gl...) "A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years." - "During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." (https://goo.gl...) - A number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008). "Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming" "It is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context" ("A poor sequel". Nature. 480 (7375): 6. December 2011) "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." Ignoring, for a second, the fact that the contents of this report were and are highly contested, they were released 26 years ago. Since then, great advancements have been made in all sorts of technological fields dealing with global warming. Those more modern sources are the ones I cite. A majority of these counterclaims by Pro are repeated numerous times in response to various arguments of mine, many times in ways that don't apply. Regardless of relevance, these counterclaims are all copied and pasted from a biased source that Pro claims to be Tesla, when in fact it's simply from a forum on Tesla's website. This is not just misleading, but blatantly in disregard for the integrity of the forum. I urge voters to note that not only did Pro misattribute a source to a company whose view is actually the diametric opposite of what he/she claims, but I've provided scientific evidence refuting the claims made by the actual source.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Man-Made-Global-Warming-Isnt-Real/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 20.08

    climate: 8.31

    premises: 7.06 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.47)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 3.32

    premises: 2.96 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.94)

    real: 8.46

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.83 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.70)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.87)
• CON

  The countries where zero, slow, or NO growth are rich,...

  Show full argument

  Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

  I apoligize for the varying (and abnormally large)sizes of graphs and charts ahead of time. Figure 1. The first graph depicts the population of Earth over time. s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624px;" height="396px;" /> As we can see in the graph, the world is not on the path of out of control population growth, in fact, population growth has been on the decline. Notice how this occured without any major population control methods. Figure 2. This chart depicts fertility rates in certain countries. s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="575px;" height="317px;" /> Why is this graph significant? It depicts the countries that are experiencing population growth. The countries where zero, slow, or NO growth are rich, "developed", states such as the US and Germany. The countries with high fertility rates are countries where poverty is rampant and birth control/women's rights are almost non-existent.Thus,larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of dire poverty and restrictions on women’s ability to control their own fertility The latest UN population report released on March 12 predicts population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this growth will occur in the global South. The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from 1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration). Raising living standards globally, improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater equality for women, creates a stable population growth, without the artificial constraints of population control. Unfortunately, you address the issue of climate change in your argument, without considering the implications of population control. An article by Simon Butler summarizes it perfectly: “In practice, there has never been a population control scheme that has met with acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing history in his 2008 book Fatal Misconception.[9] China’s one child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by prominent population theorists such as Britain’s Jonathan Poritt.[10] But he and others ignore that China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems. The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese women were denied any choice of contraceptive method – 37% of married women have been forcibly sterilized.[11] Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions” How can you guarantee the rights of others are not infringed in this process? Who “controls” birth? The government? And who will be in place to decide how to even control population? Many are against birth control, and obviously murder. I await your response.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Population-control-MUST-be-part-of-climate-change-sustainable-policies/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.89

    climate: 11.52

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

    premises: 3.73 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 1.16 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.95)

    change: 8.11

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

    premises: 2.00 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.78)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.95)
• CON

  So I must conclude that PRO merely misinterprets the only...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

  == ERRATA== CR4) NASA actually acknowledges solar cycle being responsible for past warming [12] … - it meant to point at source [13], I am sorry for typo. ==NOTE== As presented relevant sources to describe climate phenomena in my previous posts, its is now time to summarize data and claims presented by both me and my opponent. Like before, I will cite previous sources with numbering used in previous rounds and any new sources will start wit number 17. ==MAIN ARGUMENTS SUMMARY == SUM1) CO2 GH GAS SIGNIFICANCE There is no controversy between PRO and CON about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, but its significance towards AGW is being disputed. CON cited sources explaining why CO2 is not being significant and that under very generous assumptions (eg. CO2 is as strong GH gas as H2O, CO2 caused all warming between 1900 to 2000 [NOAA being cited as source of data] ) [16] show that if we doubled CO2 concentration, the upper limit of temperature increase is 1.39 �C. This includes all positive and negative feedbacks since the hyperbola is a best fit of empirical data provided by NOAA (data that my opponent defends). This rules out any kind of "Hockey stick" graph caused by CO2. Lots of Mann's assumptions are refuted in [16] too, notably that CO2 is responsible for 26% of total GH forcing, which is roughly around 5% as is supported by numerous sources cited by CON and explanation in [16]. PRO fails to provide reliable quantitative estimation of CO2 GH forcing that would refute my sources aside of correlation of temperature rise and industrialization. But that notion is supported only by hypothesis that natural phenomena couldn't cause that which brings us to next point... SUM2) NATURAL PHENOMENA AND RECENT WARMING Both PRO and CON agree natural phenomena caused cyclic climate change in the past. Question being discussed is whether this could significantly influence climate change since start of industrial age. Figures I cited in CR2 covers correlation of several natural phenomena with increase of global temperature from 1800 to 2000 and it is important to note, that increase in CO2 output do not correlate with temperature increase nor with glacier shortening ratio. It also shows perfect correlation between sun activity and arctic air temperature. PRO try to deny this fact claiming that solar activity was constant for recent century. He supported his very strong claim by single source in CA4 (the second is just temperature data) which contains NO such a claim! After being ask to show how his source supports his claim, he merely re-posted a link without quotation and blamed me for repeating myself (sic!), not addressing the matter (sic!) saying I have been refuted (sic!). I have read my opponent's re-posted source two times very carefully and found no explicit nor implicit information supporting PRO's claim! So I must conclude that PRO merely misinterprets the only figure there in very alarming way. On this basis he wants refute serious scientific papers!!! Since this problem is central to whole debate I will provide even more sources. Namely [17]: "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55�C surface warming since 1900 and one-third of the warming since 1970", [18] say: " ...annual solar irradiance variability accounts for 74% of North Hemisphere temperature anomalies from 1610 to 1800 and for 56% of variance from 1800 to present." and [19] say: "In discordance with the greenhouse effect, we believe that sunspots are the major contributor to short term climate change associated with global warming." and "Solar research quickly led to the discovery of sunspot data, which was strikingly convincing. Not only did it match historical climate data, but also coincided with human advancements/achievements throughout history. For instance, Columbus' explorations occurred when aurora numbers were high, indicating sunspot occurrence, and ultimately warmer weather. Other historical events such as the Renaissance and the Viking colonization showed close relationship with climate change, as a result of sunspots. Finally, the Irish Famine of the 1800's occurred when no auroras were present, causing colder weather and the failure of crops. In addition, sunspots have proven to have a drastic effect on the climate of Earth through the heating of our atmosphere. Sunspots are known to contribute to the formation of volcanoes, which in turn determines the composition of our atmosphere, and ultimately our climate. From this data, we can confidently state that the solar cycle of sunspots closely relates to historical climate change throughout history." Note that [17] and [18] do only deal with irradiance and Svensmark hypothesis [12] is not accounted for. Also see that my source [3] cites original scientific papers of both "sides" of debate and reviews whole scientific debate, so everyone can check it. ==COMMENTS TO MINOR ARGUMENTS== C1) "Hockey stick" graph is defended by PRO on bases of computer models of few scientists and denial of MWP. He thinks that it beats "more than 200 peer-reviewed research papers produced by more than 660 individual scientists working in 385 separate institutions from 40 different countries that comment on the MWP" [3] page 69. C2) PRO says he rebutted my claim of UHI temperature bias in CA3 and merely re-post his source again. So lets examine the source that was posted in 2006. The author (if you click at his name) describes himself as: "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." and source where he points at NASA GISS analysis show only that some steps were taken to deal with it. The author however cannot evaluate whether the adjustments were sufficient. My source is study released in 2009 that takes NASA adjustments up to that time into account and finds that adjustments are inadequate. Therefore it was PRO's source that was rebutted, not mine. C3) In CA5 PRO claims it doesn't matter IPCC was wrong. But how can he blame CO2 on basis of models that are wrong about how CO2 warms atmosphere? C4) POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE WATER FEEDBACK This area is to a large extent unknown. Many papers are being released recently discovering both positive and negative feedbacks. Some of recent papers finds strong positive feedback of water vapor like [20], which is being criticized by [21], some finds prevalent negative feedback [22]: "Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing". Note these feedbacks are related to temperature, not CO2 so PRO must defend his hypothesis that CO2 significantly causes temperature increase to even start this argument. C5) Carbon sinks Ocean takes less CO2 because temperature increase (solubility), not because its full. If CO2 pressure rise solubility rise. If CO2 doubles plants grow much faster (= photosyntetize more CO2). See the sources I cited because I am out of space. ==NOTE== PRO's lack of attention to sources is alarming as we see and he blames me for his own misconduct. ==SOURCES== [17] J Lean 1998: http://journals.ametsoc.org...(1998)011%3C3069%3ACFBCSR%3E2.0.CO%3B2 [18] J Lean 1995: http://www.geo.umass.edu... [19] Orbital Forcing: http://www.orbitalforcing.com... [20] Dessler 2008: http://www.agu.org... [21] Spencer 2009: http://www.drroyspencer.com... [22] Paltrige 2008: http://www.springerlink.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Global-Warming-Is-Real/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.79

    climate: 8.44

    premises: 7.26 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.98)

    change: 3.17

    premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)

    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

  would be posted on the Internet, open to the public (else...

  Show full argument

  Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

  Pro states that I have not addressed his three points but, instead, introduced two negative contentions. But, according to Pro, "The full resolution is: 'In all countries, governments should impose a condition on climate research grants and aid related to climate research that source data collected or analyzed under the grant, and all software developed under the government support shall be posted on the Internet within one month of publication or announcement of the results by any means.'...the full resolution is the one to debate." By refuting the negative results that most likely would result were the resolution be adopted, I have refuted the entire premise of the resolution and have thus responded to the debate challenge. To argue the results of what has NOT been done in no way validates Pros predictions of what would result if the resolution were adopted. Therefore I have properly addressed the resolution with complete and correct arguments against the resolution. Perhaps I am misreading the resolution but what I see is that once a finding is published or "announced by any means," within 1 month the source (I read this as "Raw") data that was collected or analyzed (wouldn't analyzed data also have to have been collected?) would be posted on the Internet, open to the public (else how would the "public" know what it is they are getting for their money?) apparently unabridged. To assume this would eliminate (or even curtail) errors and/or ambiguous data or skewed results is pure conjecture and unsupported. Would that this data and the software used were made available to all bona fide investigators, meaning scientists, researchers and technicians employed by or actively engaged in climate-change research for peer review and co-operative research, with Penalties for releasing information prior to peer review and consensus under the umbrella of National Security (since, indeed, the security of the nation is at stake based upon the path we take in response to the question of global climate change) then I believe a better understanding would be possible than placing the future of our country in the hands of the pundits who, admittedly (or not) have their own agendas. If all communications between parties engaged in climate-change research were to be made public, free and uninhibited discourse between these parties would be severely curtailed. Although it is impossible to secure e-mail 100%, it should still be considered as private or even as protected as "snail mail" or the verbal conversation of which it is replacing and not subject to public scrutiny. No one doubts that every instance of computer software is without possible flaws, or glitches, but to recreate identical results from identical data requires more than just a copy of the software. One has to duplicate perfectly the entry of that data and the parameters surrounding the software within the specific computer as well as being equally conversant in the operation of the software as its creator. This is especially true of software that is targeted toward a specific problem (analyzing and modeling climate change data within certain parameters) rather than "vanilla" software (such as a word processor or graphics generator) that will eventually be used in many divergent applications by many users. Most software designers, as well as most scientists, I understand, are a proud group, who feel insulted by uninformed criticism upon their work by pundits who are not conversant in the field in which their attacks are directed. To expose this work or product to public scrutiny, rather than limiting it to peer review, is to place unjustified pressure on these professionals to limit their research to "non-controversial" areas or to withhold crucial data to avoid unwarranted attack or even to "fudge" data to assuage the critics. There is no argument against the public having a right to the PRODUCTS of work paid for by taxpayers. But to insist upon public disclosure of every keystroke and instance of data falling outside of the standard deviation model is to invite equally public defamation of the publishing party as well as "ammunition" by those whose agenda is to disrupt and discredit the entire field of study by any means at their disposal. Again, I aver, there is a direct correlation between public perception of an issue and the amount of money approved to research that issue. While the Congress controls the purse strings, it is the constituency who ultimately control the congress. This, of course, includes that portion of the constituency who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, regardless of the long-term effects.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Governments-should-require-that-funded-climate-data-be-posted/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.78

    climate: 16.10

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

    premises: 6.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)

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

    change: 3.45

    premises: 3.11 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.87)
• CON

  Net/assets/peak-emissions/ If you don't want to accept...

  Show full argument

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

  I didn't rescind the hypothetical. I said there was no specific study to say yet, And commented that such a study with extremely specific numbers is probably not possible. Also, That it is only considering money and not morality, Or even human QoL. Everyone in the science community talks about "A 2C Peak to global temperatures" or "A 4C peak to global temperatures. " I can give you sources for the global temperature cycle, The natural climate change that happens over time to show you there are peaks and valleys if you want. The peak may not every stop if we don't address our effects on the climate. By pumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere we are terraforming our planet. I can give you arguments for why pumping large amounts of essentially poison into our atmosphere is also bad for human health. Here's a source that shows you people talking about trying to keep a 2C peak, And how our emissions have to change to achieve that peak. eciu. Net/assets/peak-emissions/ If you don't want to accept that then I can't force you to, But this is what the scientists speak of. The fact is if we keep it at a LOW priority and we don't address it head on, The graph above shows 2C peak will probably be unavoidable after 2040, And if the peak doesn't happen before 2025 we will have to get negative emissions to prevent going over 2C. Most people consider this fairly impossible, But not addressing it would lead us to a 4C world. Perhaps higher. Now, If your claim is that we're all doomed anyway, I guess the US could keep it a low priority. We COULD just accept that the climate is changing, Lay down and die, But your arguments as to why we SHOULD just die fall flat. 2. We set a goal to get to the moon. We didn't KNOW we could. Research was done at a high priority for no better reason than a childish spat with Russia. If we can't get above a low priority for the terraforming of our planet as far as research goes, I can't give you a better justification. What's more critical, Spats with other countries or the instability of our climate? All the scientists are suggesting many ways to pull gasses out of the atmosphere. You're asking us to trust your diagnoses that the probability is LOW but you are no authority in this matter. Even if it IS low, It should be a high priority to avoid a 4C or worse world. You have no argument to oppose this, And you have no argument to oppose the fact that increased research funding would more likely lead to a solution, Or a mitigation, Particularly when so many SCIENTISTS disagree with you. I've linked the Harvard mitigation solution already, What more do you want? It currently seems that unless I'm able to tell you precise numbers for the catastrophe and give you a 100% pure solution prior to research being conducted then your position is that we should all lie down and accept an infinitely warming climate and that it is no big deal. If you call this a LOW priority what are your high or med priorities? -Thoht

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Fixing-the-Climate-should-be-a-Low-Priority-for-the-USA/4/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.64

    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: 2.95

    premises: 2.59 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.00)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
• CON

  We won't have to wait for your grandchildren to see the...

  Show full argument

  Humans- The real threat to life on Earth

  We won't have to wait for your grandchildren to see the Earth self destruct. If we have leadership(humans) denying the danger of climate change, The Earth will self destruct very soon.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Humans-The-real-threat-to-life-on-Earth/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.53

    climate: 7.94

    premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.85 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.42)

    change: 4.08

    premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.42)

    real: 7.51

    conclusion: 7.20 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.73)
• CON

  I have made many edits in Wikipedia and after about 7...

  Show full argument

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

  I just posted some information which gave you an opportunity to react to, rather than just letting you waffle on about subjects that I am not interested in or concerned about. Regardless, if you didn't post an argument in the first round that is your fault and not mine. You just wasted a valuable round, that's all. 2. My opponent keeps using Wikipedia references and seems to think that these are highly reputable and contain infallible information which can't be disputed or challenged. This is nonsense and a contradiction of his own authority fallacy theory. The Wikipedia website is just a collection of articles which could have been written by any random person. Its the editing that is the problem. I have made many edits in Wikipedia and after about 7 days my edits disappear and the original text comes back again. Thus, the site is managed by a bunch of conservative bureaucrats that hate new ideas or changes to old theories. Thus, if you are looking for exciting new ideas and scientific breakthroughs, then, you won't find any in Wikipedia. 3. People who are innocent don't run and hide in far off distant countries like China where they will be protected by the corrupted communist system. 4. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments. I have shown that my opponent has supplied false and misleading information. I have shown that the concept of global warming is a fallacy. I have shown that Maurice Strong was a criminal. I have shown that the oceans are not rising. I have shown that CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases. I have shown how the IPCC deceives the public. Vote 1 Akhey !!!!!!!

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

    BM25 score: 19.52

    climate: 7.89

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

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

    change: 6.13

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

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

    real: 5.50

    conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)
• CON

  You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just...

  Show full argument

  CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

  First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l9ssyl/cmv_the_green_new_deal_distracts_from_climate/
  • score

    BM25 score: 19.50

    climate: 11.45

    conclusion: 5.91 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.65)

    premises: 4.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)

    change: 7.80

    conclusion: 5.11 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.65)

    premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)