PRO

  • PRO

    The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide...

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

    No, your first two references do not show anything. The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah. The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah. The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in climate science. This, of course, is just a massive appeal to authority fallacy. False Information What?! You know you can't just say "that's not true" and then have something not be true, right? Climate change poses a threat to humanity Here: http://www.greenpeace.org... Here: http://www.greenpeace.org...; Aaaand here: http://www.who.int...; Earth Self Regulates Where'd you get that from? The graphs obviously show that the temperature has not stayed level, so this point is just misinformation. "Hockey stick is broken" No it isn't, ya silly: https://www.skepticalscience.com... "CO2 increase doesn't affect temperature." *sigh* Graphs. What even is this point. It talks about radiation, then some arbitrary distance, then shortening that arbitrary difference, then talks about how distance =/= temperature (reasonable), and finally throws out some arbitrary percentage to top it all off.

  • PRO

    My response in the second round was that this Era STARTED...

    Humans cause climate changing

    My response in the second round was that this Era STARTED 248 million years ago, as I thought that the time when it started is more important than the time when it ended, because he wrote about DURING the Mesozoic Era. (I wrote it to explain my response). Second, no matter whether it was 248 million years ago or 65 million years ago, the fact is that it was million years ago and climate changed during these long period of time. My opponent wrote "during the last 2 BILLION YEARS the climate in the Earth has been fluctuating between..." It shows that climate was changing not in short time such as 2000 years, it was changing during 2 BILLION YEARS, which is very long period. The fact is without humans affect, climate changes slowly, during billions of years. However, humans' affect changes the climate quickly. Look to the cite http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... especially to the subtopic "Climate Model Indications and the Observed Climate". There is a chart where it is appeared how climate changes with and without humans affect. It proves that with humans affect climate changes quickly. There are more evidences of quickly climate changing: 1. Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last CENTURY. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century. It is changing during 100 years not billions of years. 2. All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 3. The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. 4. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005. 5. Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 6. 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. The U.S. Has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events. 7. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year. All these facts proves that during last century climate was changing a lot. The last century is about 100 years and it is really quickly. Before humans' industry climate was changing slowly during millions or even billions of year. That means people's affect is really big and dangerous. What will happen in the next centuries if such situation will continue? Next, my opponent wrote that climate and weather are different, also he gave the definition of the climate. "Climate is defined as: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years". It means that WEATHER conditions in the certain period of time IS CLIMATE. It proves that humans' affect to the weather can change the climate, as weather influences to the climate and they are not so different. That means my argument in the second round about how people change the weather is RELEVANT to the topic. I wrote that China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue sky for the National Day parade, that has caused the big storm in the next days. It is not happened once, there are several other examples of it in America, too. I would like to say that all these transformations of the weather influenced to climate changing. Once weather was changed it affects to the weather in the next periods of time. The last Con's argument is that there are other things such as volcano, which produce CO2 more than humans. So, as he claimed a big amount of CO2 is not humans' fault. My response is that in the nature everything was balanced before industry. The certain amount of the CO2, which produces by volcanoes or other things, was removed by trees and by algae. However, since the industry appeared, a lot of factories, manufactures and a lot of vehicles were invented and amount of CO2 increases. Moreover, trees and algae that removes the CO2 were destroyed, burned and cut by humans. That means human increases the amount of CO2 and decrease the trees that removes CO2, so humans damaged the natural balance, as a result an amount of CO2 increased and it influences to climate's changing. Look to the cite http://climate.nasa.gov... There is a chart, which proves that for 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 has never been above the certain line until 1950 year. It shows that amount of CO2 was once small, then was big, but the fact is that it was in balance in the certain amount, while since humans start to use factories and vehicles, CO2's amount increased a lot. That proves that humans affect to climate changing. In conclusion, I have clearly proved that attack to transform the weather can influence to the climate changing; that increasing of the amount of the CO2 during last years is a big problem that is caused by humans. Also, that the climate changing affected by humans is quicklier than the natural climate changing can be. So, humans are the main creature that influences to the climate and changes it. So, I am writing to everyone, think a bit about climate changing and its consequences. What will happen in the future if CO2 increase, sea level and global temperature rise, ocean acidification continues? Humans affects to these problems and, I believe, humans can stop them. Think about your future and the future of the next generation and stop damaging to the nature and to the climate. Thank you for attention.)) Also, thank you, my opponent. I had excellent experiences by debating with you. It was really interesting. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.enchantedlearning.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Humans-cause-climate-changing/1/
  • PRO

    If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an...

    97% of Climate Scientists Don't Actually Agree

    Just about every time a debate begins anywhere on the topic of climate change, you will hear the statistic "97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused my human induced pollution". Well, that settles it right? There is no way that 97% of climate scientists could all be wrong? Using this, we should all be able to agree that it is time to focus on climate change and accept that it is our fault and we can stop it right? Well, no. I've started this debate to clarify that the 97% statistic is very misleading and used for the wrong purposes. Let it be known to my opponent and voters that this is not a general climate change debate, but simply a debate on this number alone. Please remain on this topic. Now, let me start by talking about the primary topic of this debate, the 97% statistic. And you've probably heard this before, but what exactly do they agree on? If 97% of scientists said that The Earth is warming at an alarming and dangerous rate, then why question it, but my sources say that they say no more then point out a slight warming trend of about 0.8 degrees over the past century. So if this is the only statistic they all agree on, then how do you justify using this statistic to justify government funded organisations as big as the EPA or other environmental protection programs. you can't It has also been proven that in most cases of any percentage of 90+ in cases of climate change are almost always do to poor studies. For instance John Cook came up with a study in 2012 that stated "97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming and human activity is the main cause" Well, it turns out that most of his papers never actually stated any such thing. He in fact created a category which he believed the prior statement was implied, but never stated, which we can all agree can be considered as malpractice. It also turns out that 3 scientists,Dr. Craig Idso, Dr. Nichola Scafetta, and Dr. Richard Tol, whose papers where included all said that there papers where never supposed to be used in any such way. So, based on my arguments, I believe it is safe to say that until an accurate study is conducted stating that climate scientists agree that Climate change is real and that humans are the primary cause we can not use any such statistic to convince the public to take unnecessary actions to resolve a problem that we know little about the magnitude and possible consequences of, not to mention the fact that they haven't even confirmed that there is even something we can do to stop it.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/97-of-Climate-Scientists-Dont-Actually-Agree/1/
  • PRO

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

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

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

  • PRO

    Your second point was that temperatures were higher in...

    CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

    Thank you for the chance to debate this topic. I am an avid believer that climate change is mainly man made, at least now. Your first point was how even though data shows a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature, carbon emission is not the largest factor. But according to the World Meteorological Organization (as well as NASA and countless organizations and scientists), CO2 is the largest factor of global warming. This study included natural substances like water vapor. The problem with CO2 is that it is a very abundant greenhouse gas which takes a long time to dissipate from the atmosphere. 65% of global emissions are CO2 emissions, making it by far the most abundant man made greenhouse gas. Even though it isn't as abundant as water vapor, it is much more effective at trapping the Sun's rays. Now, greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming, while the most effective and very abundant greenhouse gas is CO2. Here are some graphs: From NASA, this is probably the most infamous graph as it shows just how drastic CO2 emissions have gone up. (It won't let me post photos, so here is the link) http://climate.nasa.gov... Enlightening, isn't it? Now this concerns temperature rise at the same time as CO2 rise. http://climate.nasa.gov... This link should have the graph close to the top on the right hand side Not only that, but a massive 97% of all scientists agree global warming is man made. ------- Your second point was that temperatures were higher in the past than they are now (specifically, during the time of Roman civilization). While there definitely are natural cycles that rise and lower, Earth's temperature is accelerating at a much faster rate than any natural cycle before, and shows no sign of stopping like a cycle would. This is again, because of man made emissions, and the majority of those are carbon. ------- Your third point was that global warming is mainly due to sun rays hitting the earth and heating it up. While sun rays hit the earth and that is what causes all weather, the amount of rays stays basically stable like the earths orbit. So when greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere, they trap sun rays and warm the earth. So the evidence shows clearly that global warming is mainly people driven, although natural cycles may contribute to the increase. The evidence shows clearly that greenhouse gases are the largest cause of global warming. The evidence shows clearly that CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat. Therefore, the evidence shows that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. Sources: https://www3.epa.gov... http://climate.nasa.gov... https://www3.epa.gov... https://www.wmo.int...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/CO2-emissions-are-directly-responsible-for-climate-change./1/
  • PRO

    However not all of it is retrievable. ... But no of...

    Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

    Ok first off If you read my post about the Hydrogen economy I am not citing the entire book. I was citing the over estimating of useable oil left in reserves and the political implications. NOT HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE. No where have I said that hydrogen would be a good source because you are right about its, its too expensive and produces a lot of water vapor. Those studies are just proxy studies and that research fails to account for the massive quantities release into the atmosphere through emissions. Plus no you haven't showed and direct link for any data such as that. Least not in this debate. CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quatities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossiable to think otherwise. Oh and catalytic converters has now been linked with production of nitrous oxide. Another wonderful greenhouse gas. Plus burn more fuel. Gas prices are already inflated and not due to enviromentalists. Production is tapping out. Our oil reserves are starting to run dry. There is still a lot of oil left. However not all of it is retrievable. Countries are overestimating oil reserves, Hydrogen economy discusses that quite in depth. Yes there have been warming periods and cooling periods. However there are very few that have such a high growth rate in greenhouse gases combined with a high species extinction rate. Well the scientists in the 70s are not totally wrong. When large amounts of heating occurs it changes the climate and weather patterns. This can create another ice age or other adverse climate changes Millions of people are starving right now. We could solve world hunger right now with a small tax and genetically engineered food. However Americans for the most part would most likely whine and complain. Rather we rather waste our money on war and oppression. Don't feed me that crap. Most of those countries can't afford to think of a tractor. Plus they aren't emitting hardly any emissions so it does affect them. We are the ones that are wasting and throwing away tons of resources. WE should pay the price of our self-indulgence. The reason oil prices are so high is because our current government set us up for economic disaster. With the dollar being so highly inflated it raises great concern on the market. Since oil commodities are in dollar amounts they go up with inflation too. On top of this foreign investors who have higher currency then us (the European union) buy this oil because it creates a good hedge fund in the portfolio. Now they have a commodity that has a demand and with more and more purchases will only drive up the price. Plus the oil in the Alaskan refuge is miniscule. It would barely make a dent in gas prices. It would be years before we would see it hit the market in full force. However right now Alberta just found a huge oil reserve. Plus oil will run out before 2020. Or at least the reserves that we currently can access. Plus OPEC has also said they will not increase production. So its not the environmentalist fault. "Climate research is not science it is a political view point". Did you just seriously say that. I mean seriously that is one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard. I suppose then all the research saying that nothing is happening is just a political viewpoint. Yes the climate of Hawaii and its origin must all be a political viewpoint. Are you a scientist? Are you even qualified in the least to make that assumption? Lets just pretend (I'm just asking you to pretend not believe all-right.) that we really are ruining the planet. Lets pretend that we mess it up and we cease to exist as a species. Wouldn't you want to save the very thing that you depend on to survive. If we destroy our planet we are out of luck. Thats it no more. Wouldn't you want to try to do anything to protect the planet for the sake of your own life and if not but for your children's sake. But no of course not. We must burn the wildlife refuges and drill for oil and pillage our earth's pantry until its bear. We are overfishing our oceans, exhausting fields of their soil, destroying ecosystems for sake of greed. Honey Bees our most foremost pollinator are dying and we have no idea why. But no, you say drill for the oil, cut down the forest, we are not citizens of nature but masters of it. Well guess what, we are not masters or conquers we are residents. The real danger is the dire state our planet it in. Environmentalist are fighting for balance. You spew all of this garbage out of your mouth about how environmentalism is evil and is just robbing america blind. Have you ever considered that is might be the other way around?

  • PRO

    This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting: I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic [32]. Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side. Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are "alarmists." This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary. Summary of Sources by Pro: Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive. Summary of Sources by Con: Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the "Solar Radiation" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted. Con's Round 1 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement heartland.org 1 N Y National Interagency Fire Center Organization Established Off Topic Daily Mail 1 (David Rose) N N Washington Post Jason Samenow N Y NPR 1 (Zac Unger) N Y Forbes 1 (Larry Bell) N N Mitosyfraudes.org 1 (Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner) Geodynamics N Newscientist.com 1 (Michael Le Page) N Y The Guardian 1 (Damian Carrington) N Neither The Telegraph 1 (Christopher Booker) N N Brutally Honest N/A N N NewsBusters 1 (Noel Sheppard) N N Market Wired N/A N cfact.org 1 (Marita Noon) N N American Thinker (2007) 1 (D. Bruce Merrifield) Y (Physical Chemistry, Ph. D.) “While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the "forcing agent" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study.” Whatsupwiththat 1 (David Middleton) N N CO2science.org 1 (Christie Shumway) 4th-grade science project N/A Nature 4 Y (Department of Agriculture; Harvard Planetary Sciences) Y blogs.nature.com Oliver Morton N N/A Journal of Geophysical Research 10+ Y (Forecasting Research and Development; University of Reading; University of Leeds) Y Nature 2 Y (Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen) Y Nature 1 (Olivier Boucher) Y (American Geophysical Union) Y minnesotans for global warming .com Elmer N N Con's Round 2 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement badscience.net 1 (Ben Goldacre) Y (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) Off topic (discusses MMR and autism) businessinsider.com 1 (Dina Spector) N Off topic (discusses religious predictions) Nature 1 (Daniel R. Taub) Y (Biology Department, Southwestern University) Y (CO2 is the independent variable, climate change is acknowledged in introduction) climatecentral.org 1 (Tim Radford) N Neither theresilientearth.com 1 (Doug L. Hoffman) N N Daily Caller 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N icecap.us 1 (Frank Lansner) No record N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Joannenova.com 1 (JoNova) N N Shrouded in Doubt (blog) 2 (blogger and R. Dale Guthrie) N (blogger) Y (Guthrie, University of Chicago) N & Y (blogger assigns improper headline to Guthrie’s work) Wikipedia Holocene Climate Optimum N/A N Off topic European Space Agency Organization Y (European Space Agency) Off topic (ozone hole) skepticalscience.com 1 (John Cook) Y (University of Queensland) Y Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 1 (Zhang, J.) Y (University of Washington) Y (ice is declining) polarbearscience.com 1 (Dr. Susan J. Crockford) Y (University of British Columbia) Off topic (discusses Polar Bear population) Daily Mail 1 (Caroline Graham) N N The Hockey Schtick (blog) 1 (HocheySchtick1) N N sciencedaily.com reference to Nature Article 11 Y (Centre for Oceanic Research) Off topic (Oceans absorb CO2, reduces oceanic ph) Nature 10 Y (Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, University of California, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Maine) Y (The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs) OceanWorld.tamu.edu organization . . . i think so Off topic (feed iron to plankton to increase productivity) wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Bob Tisdale) N N judithcurry.com 1 (Judith Curry) N N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Con's Round 3 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given Con's Round 4 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N New York Times (blog) 1 (Andrew C. Revkin) N Neither (discusses whether scientists should have political opinions) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) Joannenova.com 1 (Joanne Nova) N N wattsupwiththat 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N MSNBC 2 (Ian Johnston, James Lovelock) Y (London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine) N The Telegraph 1 (Fritz Vahrenholt) N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N The Globe and Mail 2 (Neil Reynolds, Robert Laughlin) N & Y (Stanford University Physics) N Climate Depot 2 (Judith Curry, Marc Morano) N N Climate Depot 2 (Richard Lindzen, Marc Morano) Y, N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N poleshift.ning.com (blog) 1 N N truthisreason.com (blog) 1 N N http://goo.gl... URL disabled I apologize for the awkwardness of this pasted chart, but I have enjoyed this debate, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it!

  • PRO

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

    Reduced emissions from RES may have no impact on climate change

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

  • PRO

    I will take the pro side. ... Second round is...

    Climate Shift

    Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is primarily influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/3/
  • PRO

    I will take the pro side. ... I'm looking for someone to...

    Climate Shift

    Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only. No new arguments may be made in the final round. No new rebuttals may be made in the final round. I'm looking for someone to legitimately and intellectually debate this subject.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/

CON

  • CON

    I'll just use this round for acceptance, and I urge my...

    Climate Change is happening

    I was challenged to this out of nowhere. I'll just use this round for acceptance, and I urge my opponent to provide some arguments. Citations are a nice way to back up facts, but they are not a substitute for arguing. I look forward to my opponent's first argument.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-happening/1/
  • 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

    Citing that there was a point in history where things...

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

    Warming is beneficial Whether warming is beneficial or not is irrelevant. The issue of Global Climate Change (here-in referred to as "GCC") is not simply warming, it is acceleration of warming trends within a short period of time. At one point in Earth's history there were crocodiles in Canada, and at one point the equator was winterous. Whether either of these conditions is "beneficial" is not at issue here; the issue is the acceleration of warming spurred by the release of large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere. "Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down." [http://www.newscientist.com...] During Earth's history, the atmospheric gases present were a direct result of the organisms in the biosphere. These organisms work over extremely long time-periods. Long periods allow for evolution to adjust accordingly to change. Humans obviously are able to use technology to effect rapid change that biodiversity is unable to adapt to. 1a. plants will thrive "For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent." [http://www.newscientist.com...] Just because plants like C02 doesn't mean they are going to thrive when all is considered. Pro states: "Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively starved." I find this very hard to believe. Of all the forests and fields of the world that are lush with vegetation, Pro would have us believe that they are actually starving for C02. Sure, we feed certain plants extra C02 in greenhouses, we keep them extra warm and humid, and we pump excess nutrients into their roots - that doesn't mean all of Earth's plants are too cold, undernourished, dry, and C02 starved. And last I checked, everything In nature is evolved perfectly into its surroundings. Citing that there was a point in history where things were different doesn't meant that things stopped evolving back then. 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Pro states: "many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling" Perhaps Pro doesn't get out of the house much. We are experiencing one of the most bizarre and extreme summer heat waves on record, with thousands of records being broken and re-broken as we speak. This page outlines many of them, which are far too numerous for me to include in an 8,000 character post: [http://www.washingtonpost.com...] Pro gives sources saying that the Earth is cooling over the last ten years. At best, he's picked a small fluctuation at a convenient interval to make his assertation. At worst, he's picked a completely biased website that doesn't reflect the state of modern science at all. It appears that both of these assumptions are correct. His site claims it's getting its information from NASA, but this is what NASA has to say (notice my link is actually NASA): http://www.giss.nasa.gov... I'll let the concluding paragraph do the talking: "If we follow a 'business-as-usual' course, Hansen predicts, then at the end of the twenty-first century we will find a planet that is 2-3°C warmer than today, which is a temperature Earth hasn't experienced since the middle Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when sea level was roughly 25 meters higher than it is today." 25 meters > 9 inches. Perhaps the land-mass of the Earth was different back then, but I doubt that could account for the entire discrepency between the numbers NASA gave us versus Pro's claim. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. Just because China and the developing world are going to lag behind us in cutting fossil fuel usage doesn't mean we should give up the effort. In fact, the reason why China et al. do not put any real attempts into cutting C02 is because they will be damned if they are going to cut emissions while we refrain. People in other countries have a different perspective than we do; they see America as the richest, most powerful country in the world. They see us, with 5% of the population, creating 40% of the world's waste [http://www.recycling-revolution.com...]. So it is more responsible to assert that we are one of the top-producers of C02, instead of saying "well China is 5% ahead of us," isn't it? I mean, this is similar logic to a mis-behaving child who is trashing the living room and insists on continuing simply because another sibling is slightly ahead in total damage. If the U.S. continues to decrease its C02 emissions, then China et al. will be accentuated more as the true roots of the problem. If we refrain from cutting emissions, then they will continue to hide behind our lack of effort and no progress will be made because China also has a conservative element that will use our inaction to strengthen their own denial of culpability. 4. Too expensive I reject Pro's numbers based on the fact that the resolution merely states that GCC should be a "major factor" in our energy policy. It doesn't say that we need to tear down every power plant overnight. The spirit of this debate is whether or not GCC is a serious consideration; we don't have the time or space to debate specific plans of action regarding how to address the problem. It is sufficient for me to assert that GCC should significantly affect our policymaking (based on whether or not ut is bunk science), not that it necessarily must override every economic decision we have. I have only one contention that I would like addressed: 5. The world's scientific community agrees that GCC is real and is imminently dangerous The national scientific academies from all these countries have not only acknowledged GCC as a real threat, but have explicitly urged that all countries reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to combat it: Australia Belgium Brazil Cameroon Royal Society of Canada the Caribbean China France Ghana Germany Indonesia Ireland Italy India Japan Kenya Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nigeria New Zealand Russia Senegal South Africa Sudan Sweden Tanzania Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Zambia Zimbabwe For a complete list of the scientific institutions that support GCC theory reference this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org...] There are too many to count reliably, but I saw about 70 on the list. I'm sure Pro will point out that the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation have NOT signed on, but I'm hoping that these notable absences will not distract too much. The link goes on to inform: "Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases." So, after 30+ of the world's top national scientific academies and 70+ of the world's foremost scientific institutions formally endorsed GCC as a real, anthropologically-induced threat, Pro's concerns occupy nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists, as well as a handfull of purely politically-motivated right-wing institutions who put out data with the sole purpose of creating a doubt in the public eye that GCC is real enough to worry about, while 99% of the scientists involved have no doubts whatsoever that it is real.

  • 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

    I accept your challenge! ... I look forward to a...

    Climate Change is caused by Humans

    I accept your challenge! I look forward to a respectable debate with you! May the best side win!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-caused-by-Humans/1/
  • CON

    As I said you have not shown any scientific proof. ......

    Global Warming: Climate Change

    As I said you have not shown any scientific proof. Global warming is only natural but the fear has been exaggerated by some politicians with agendas of their own.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Climate-Change/2/
  • CON

    My opponent has forfeited. ... You must vote for my points

    Global Warming: Climate Change

    Okay my argument stands unanswered. My opponent has forfeited. You must vote for my points

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Climate-Change/2/
  • CON

    In reality however it is water vapor that contributes...

    Global Warming: Climate Change

    One of the major mistakes I see in your opening argument is the blaming of the 2003 killer heat wave on global warming. Quite the contrary the heat wave was caused by an atmospheric circulation anomaly within the jet stream. Another is the assumption that co2 is the main cause of global warming and the greenhouse gas effect. In reality however it is water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse gasses. The world has always had periods of global cooling or global warming. Two of the most famous would be the great ice age or the medieval warming periods. Now I don't believe that they had coal plants next to castles so how would we explain that. Plus the medieval warming was actually just as hot if not more warm than now. Deforestation is a major problem but I believe that global warming is highly overestimated. And I do have one question for unrelated purposes. Did you watch Al gores Movie about global warming?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Climate-Change/2/
  • CON

    When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear...

    Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements

    It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions[i]. It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i] http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm