Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewClimate 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.
Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
So my oppenents case is all about attacking me, he has not included any evidence to suppot his attacks, not only this but he also has failed to rebut his own case. therefore you can go ahead and drop his contentions, now onto my own case. for my contention one his only attack on it was that i was ignoring the uncontrollable changes, yet i have mentioned before that cooling the ocean floor would actually solve those "uncontrollable changes" that he has no evidence to support. for his second attack he said that places like norway are in debt alot, but in my conclusion i state that we would actually gain money from this therefore that arguement is no longer valid. for his last and final attack says that climate change is a moral right, yet his definition of it was invalid. he also said that my definition was wrong and didn't offer a counter solution.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
First, I would like to thank my opponent for debating this topic with me in a respectful manner. Courage is needed to go against the majority. Second, I would like to note my opponent's response is very dense. To disprove my opponent's arguments I need to take my opponent's statements a few sentences at a time. "Your first argument, "Carbon dioxide is at 404.48 parts per million and the temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880." That is not a scientific argument. It is a correlation. There is no REAL evidence to suggest that Co2 impact temperature." rammer5678 Yes, you are correct as presented it is a correlation. I will now show that there is causation. ""When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase."" [2] There should be no doubt that CO2 causes global warming. "Especially when 25% of all Co2 produced by man has been released in the last 20 years and in that time there has been NO NET WARMING!!!" rammer5678 All caps always helps prove science. Temperatures have risen. In 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015 were hotter than 1998. "Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." [3] Temperatures have risen in the last twenty years. "You also make it sound like 1.4 degrees is what was predicted by the models showing Co2 causing temperature. I wasn't." rammer5678 You are correct that not all the models were correct. The overall premise is correct that the planet is getting warmer due to CO2. As for your link from wattsupwiththat.com, this is a known climate change denial site. The site is run by Willard Anthony Watts. He is a paid AGW denier, Anthropogenic Global Warming denier. "Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]" [4] Your source is not credible. Voters please give me the more credible source points if nothing else. "You make a reference to cigarette companies. Please remember that we are talking about Man Made Global Warming, not cigarettes. Keep your own habits to yourself." rammer5678 Yes, this is true. Nevertheless this should impact the resolution since it shows historical evidence of how malice and greed can hold science at bay. Cigarette companies show the depths that people will sink to. "Al Gores, "The Inconvenient Truth" predicted that all the arctic ice caps would be melted by 2013. In case you haven't noticed, the ice caps are still there. He also predicted the polar bears would all have died out by now. That hasn't happened." Rammer5678 Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5] As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. " The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers." [6] As you can see, I've destroyed all your arguments while proving causation of CO2 to increase temperature. A few notes, the polar bears are still in danger in the long term. [7] The ice caps melting has provided less hunting ground for them. You also make some inflammatory remarks like Al Gore's documentary was riddled with lies. Many of the predictions have come true. Also, there is a large difference between a falsehood and a lie. The models could not take in every single factor. As time prorgresses we get more and more accurate models. You have provided no evidence that the documentary was manpiulated. A person with the best of intentions can come to the wrong conclusion. Thanks for debating. You are making me work for victory. Sources. 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 4. http://www.sourcewatch.org... 5. http://www.nasa.gov... 6. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.nytimes.com...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
The Sahara Desert started growing 7 million years ago due to changes in the ocean currents and movement of continents into different climate zones. Not because of any human input. The Great barrier reef is always in state of flux and movement. If the reef dies off in the northern sector it grows equally in the southern region. Bleaching is mostly a result of tourists who take away important shell fish that keep coral predators in check. Once you remove all the shell fish that eat the Crown of Thorns Star Fish you get reefs being eaten away until they go all white. This is nothing to do with the climate.
Climate Shift
What a rude and poorly thought response. Please, do not insult me when I am seeking only an intellectual debate. Framework If con did not like the framework of the debate (which is a fairly standard format) then they should not have accepted the debate. Con does not understand what, in debate, a resolution is. If I may offer some info to con, a resolution is a statement that the Pro side must argue in agreement with, and the Con side must argue in disagreement with. The resolution contends three cases. 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. As it is apparent that my opponent has put no real thought forward as to what this means, I'll attempt to shed light into the dark deep abyssal grotto of ignorance that is the argument of my opponent. For the pro to win this debate, Pro must tender a compelling argument that every case presented by the resolution is agreeable with. The first point regards the reality of climate shift or global warming (which is a common point of debate). The second point regards the cause of climate shift, if it is indeed real. The final point regards the impact of climate shift (again, if it is indeed real). If my opponent is confused as to what climate shift is, then I shall provide a definition. This debate regards climate shift or what is more colloquially referred to as Global warming. "the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation."(1) The framework is the structure of the debate. The rules. It is always relevent. Pro's Case My entire argument is almost totally unrebutted. Con only makes a weak attempt to discredit a single point. Overall, a weak argument made by the Con that consists primarly of aggressive rantlike points that all lack proper substantiation. Cons argument also fails to meet the BOP. Conduct ought to be awarded to pro for cons flagrant disregard for the rules of the debate. As con failed to cite any sources but one, sources ought to be awarded to pro as well. Arguments are up to the judges, but I would remind that judges that almost my entire argument is unrebutted, and, according to the framework of the debate, any new arguments or rebuttals that the con may try to make in the final round are to be disregarded completely. VOTE PRO! 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Man Made Climate Change Is Fake
*Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of "they" until the very end! :) Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations. His first observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely has an effect on climate. His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He is correct in saying that a consensus is more scientific then a home experiment but a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus. My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim. I run into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence. (keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong with the models. In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect. My opponent then says, "my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane. My opponent also says there is an undoubted correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007). As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time, Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Then, in my opponents fifth point, he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural." This is just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only in the last 1000 years! Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that is what they were planning to debate. In my opponents case he just states everything that I have already disproven. He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere. He says humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...) Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease. To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or not. After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence. True evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible. In conclusion, I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
The climate is not changing and if it was, Humans didn't cause it.
as the developed world, fund African climate adaptation
Climate change is already costing lives
Behavioral change is the key to environmental sustainability
I will go ahead and make my case since the con has the first argument in each round. However, first I would like to lay down ground rules. The Pro (me) will have the responsibility of demonstrating why changes to behavior key to environmental sustainability, particularly in regards to However, first I would like to lay down ground rules. The Pro (me) will have the responsibility of demonstrating why changes to behavior key to environmental sustainability, particularly in regards to climate change, however I will touch on other areas. The con will have presumption. In the first and second rounds both teams may bring up new arguments, in the third and fourth rounds, no new arguments, no exceptions. Fourth round, both teams will respond to any final arguments made previously, and conclude their arguments and show why they should win the debate. Additionally we must define several terms before we begin. 1) Behavior shall refer to how individuals and society act and function. 2) Change shall be defined as an alteration 3) Environmental Sustainability shall refer to maintenence of the factors and practices that contribute to preserving the quality of the environment, and its ability to support human life, on a long term basis. Moving on to my arguments. First Argument: Mitigating Climate Change requires behavioral changes Climate change is by far the greatest environmental issue we face in our world today. Climate change is caused by rising global tempertrues (ie Global Warming) which is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases (chiefly CO2) in the atmostphere. Human activity has been linked to the accumulation of Greenhouse gases in the atmostphere, through our consumption of fossil fuels. According to the UN, humans must severly limit CO2 emissions in order to combat climate change. This will mean that humans will need to end the practice of burning fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy. This would be a behavioral change as fossil fuels have been used to power societies since the industrial revolution. http://www.theguardian.com... Second Argument: Over consumption harms biodiversity, Biodiversity is key In our world today, fish stocks are being rapdily depleted thanks to overfishing. It is belived 70% of fish stocks have been depleted or exhausted. Bluefin Tuna stocks alone have dropped 96%. This is havgin serious harmful impacts on marine biodiversity. Biodiversity is vital to earth's "life support systems", and losing it has severe consequences of the long term sustainability of life on earth. In order to stop this loss of biodiversity, we must curtail our consumption of fish, thereby reducing demand and allowing stocks to replinish. http://www.seaweb.org... http://www.un.org...
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!
Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than on climate change.note am a new debator
Climate change is Manmade
Round one does not mean anything If someone wants con they can leave a comment and I will let them have Con I just created this so we can start the debate, the con/pro side can type something random and round 2 is the opening statement Rules: Format Pro Opening statement Con Opening Statement Pro questions Con Answers Con questions Pro Answers Pro closing Con closing
Climate Change Exists
I would like to thank my opponent for setting up this challenge. I will be playing devil's advocate.
The political science of climate change
The propaganda issued by the IPCC in respect to 97% of scientists believing in AGW is nothing but a very successful attempt to strike fear into gullible people so they will fall in line willingly with Agenda 21. This is the science of creating green guilt, nothing more. Global warming is a term used by the modern eugenicists to reduce the population of people they see as fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers, aka Americans. Meanwhile they transfer American wealth to overpopulated countries in the name of humanitarianism, while the middle class in America gets destroyed. AGW believers are nothing but minions of the globalist elite who are using their wealth to suffocate freedom so they can have the very small population of elitists they so desire. Are you on board with Agenda 21?
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
I'm happy, Although slightly bewildered, By the chance to take this debate. I'll address, Right off the bat, That there are a few minor issues with the opinion of the opposing debator. He starts with some minor claims such as: Volcanoes release 1000 times more Co2 then humans could hope to release. This is. . . Absurdly inaccurate. Current estimates by the United States Geological Survey, Which tracks all global Volcanic activity, Estimates the total amount of Co2 released by volcanoes per year to be 0. 44 gigatons per annum. Human emissions account for 37 gigatons per annum. Natural emissions, About 15 Gigatons per annum. Sulfur and other atmospheric conditions are temporary, As can be seen by the "mini ice age" which lasted for seven. Greenhouse gasses, As far as we can tell, Are nearly permament. Humanity is not a small presence, Even as our individual presence is small. A slime mold on a ball, No matter how large each cell compared to the ball, Effects the surface. According to a recent article by Scientific American, Human CO2 emissions are roughly equal to emissions as burning down the entirety of Africa, Every single year. Or an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions produced by 1700 Mt St. Helena eruptions, Again, Per annum. Greenhouse gasses are trace, Yes, But trace gasses, Including CO2, Do not need high concentrations to reach dangerous effects in an atmosphere that goes up for 70 kilometers and traps gigajoules of heat from the sun. Greenhouse gasses, As well as albedo, Are driving forces for temperature on the surface. As far as well can tell, The greenhouse gasses are higher then they were 10 million years before, As obtained by rock and ice core samples. It's been well established by modelling and atmospheric infrared experimentation, That most of the Human emissions account for 37 gigatons per annum. Natural emissions, About 15 Gigatons per annum. Sulfur and other atmospheric conditions are temporary, As can be seen by the "mini ice age" which lasted for seven. Greenhouse gasses, As far as we can tell, Are nearly permament. Humanity is not a small presence, Even as our individual presence is small. A slime mold on a ball, No matter how large each cell compared to the ball, Effects the surface. According to a recent article by Scientific American, Human CO2 emissions are roughly equal to emissions as burning down the entirety of Africa, Every single year. Or an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions produced by 1700 Mt St. Helena eruptions, Again, Per annum. Greenhouse gasses are trace, Yes, But trace gasses, Including CO2, Do not need high concentrations to reach dangerous effects in an atmosphere that goes up for 70 kilometers and traps gigajoules of heat from the sun. Greenhouse gasses, As well as albedo, Are driving forces for temperature on the surface. As far as well can tell, The greenhouse gasses are higher then they were 10 million years before, As obtained by rock and ice core samples. It's been well established by modelling and atmospheric infrared experimentation, That most of the climate shifts on earth, Ranging from the ice age, To the Jurassic era, When the arctic had a temperate climate, Were the result of CO2. Doubling the amount of these trace gasses is not a light matter.
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...
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force
Pro thinks that if you spend money towards climate, it will solve the issue. There is one BIG thing Pro is not thinking of. If we somehow get the entire world to lay down their arms then that is just dandy. However, that will happen. We need to protect ourself. Dropping the military budget will only make things worse. Not only that but it would be slowing down the thing that might happen anyway. Pro then lists some Al Gore qoutes, which he doesn't build on. Miltary is more useful then climate change.
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 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.
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.
"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
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Hello, Mac, and I am glad you instigated this debate. My opponent’s arguments rely on three main contentions: 1) Global warming is real and is a threat 2) Global warming is caused by human activity 3) We should attempt to stop global warming I will refute them as follows: 1. Global warming is real and a threat My opponent’s main point here is the expected sea level rise. However, some scientific papers have been released showing the sea level rise has been over predicted and that in many parts of the world, sea level rise isn’t happening at all. The IPCC’s data claiming massive sea level rise has been grossly exaggerated and is utterly incorrect. For example, Bangladesh should have been engulfed in water, or should be seeing significant problems. In 2007, the IPCC proclaimed their doomsday. However recent data shows the sea levels there are not rising [1]. My opponent also forgets the possible benefits of Global Warming. For example, parts of Canada, Russia, and Argentina too cold for industrialization and farming would become reachable. Historically, warmer temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere acted as a benefit for the Vikings. Greenland and Iceland’s productivity rose, the increased rain caused better harvests, and lead to the Vikings making landfall in the New World. The increased CO2 would make plant growth easier and enhance the world, making it muck more habitable. Some of the warmest periods in our history, the world flourished with resources aplenty; a warmer climate could easily be good for you and me [2]. My opponents other point here is the reality of global warming, and here I agree. There has been an overall warming trend since 1850, however I dispute current warming. Global warming stopped in 1997, with an overall decrease in temperature since then. Using NOAA data starting from 2000, to avoid the El Niño year in 1998 (which ‘refutes’ the global warming stopped theory) shows no change. A slight decrease in temperature, although the trend is less. There has been no warming since 1997, and no statistically significant warming since 1995 [3]. 2. Humans are the cause of global warming This is the main contention of the debate; if it is awful, but natural, we can’t stop it: changing our ways of life would be worthless. If it is still happening but is natural, we can’t stop it and changing would, again, be a pointless exercise. So, I explain the reasoning on why claiming humans cause global warming is illogical. First, CO2 and other emissions increase during a good economy. After the 1940’s, a post-war economic boom occurred. At this time, when CO2 increased, is when scientists said humans first began to have a large impact on global warming. Interestingly, temperatures decreased at this time. Alarmists have tried to counter these claims, but their logic fails to hold up [4]. Either way, my opponent has only assumed humans are the main cause of the warming; he has given little evidence himself that we are the cause. Correlation is always an argument in this debate. People have argued there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, however this is simply untrue. CO2 only correlates r= .44, with 1 being perfect and 0 being none at all. This means the correlation rates fair to poor. The sun scores better, with an r= .57, meaning it rates to fair to good. And the PDO correlates the best, with an 0.83 rating good [5]. It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it. Further, the current warming should have been predicted, as according to Singers 1,500 sun cycle the current warming was right on time. The majority of geologists—about 50%—believe global warming is a natural cycle and the current warming is right on time [6]. Other explanations, like cosmic rays, also seems like a possible factors. In short wording: Humans likely do not play a major role in global warming, although we likely exacerbate the situation a little bit. 3. It should be stopped—specifically with green energy If my opponent wishes to bring up another solution, I am all ears. However he currently argues green energy is the solution. Lets go down the list: a) Wind power There is a simple problem with wind: the fact that wind is not always blowing, and its upfront capital costs more then outweighs the fact that wind, itself, is free. Wind itself has lees value then its fossil fuel competitors and must be placed in areas with constant (or higher then average) wind amounts, limiting its universality. Unlike Fossil fuel plants, which can be planted anywhere. There is other, in my opinion more real, issues then global warming. Wind stations kill the avian populations and take up a lot of space, often ruining natural beauty. Many rodents actually like the wind farms and live inside the fan. Rodents—a food source for many predators—get killed trying to eat them. And, obviously, other birds will fly through the places and get whacked and die. Some Wind projects take 10 billion pounds of raw materials. If we assume global warming is man made, the CO2 created by the mining and construction often times shrinks the overall benefit. b) Solar Potential market chare for solar has been overestimated time and time again and the subsidies that the industry relies on—because it is not competitive with fossil fuel because the marker does not favor it—costs millions of dollars, even more then the Wind subsidies. Thermal solar plants need 1,000 times more the resources fossil fuel plants need. Some studies argue: “Solar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks--as with nuclear power--and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition.”[7] Other Solar industries (there are many) require millions of dollars to operate and to even be on the market and commercialize their products. Many environmentalists have a actually given up on some solar markets, like photovoltaic, in favor of nuclear (something they usually despise) because of the destruction of those solar plants. c) Hydro Even environmentalists have left hydro power, uttering the power source in the same breath as they do natural gas, coal, and nuclear. From a conservative standpoint, the construction of Hydro power is actually very invasive on the surrounding community and cost millions. On a more liberal note, the hydro plants take a lot of resources to build and kill and disturb many fish populations. The cost of current hydro plants are 5-6 times more expensive per kilowatt hour then other fossil fuels. d) Case study: Michigan There has been no net job growth because of their green energy, they have created jobs in one sector but have taken them away from another. Their energy prices have increased and their prices continue to increase. Other states, like North Dakota, have welcomed fossil fuels and have had a net job growth and prices fall. Studies have shown for every one job created in their oil industry, another three are created because of decreased energy costs [8]. CONCLUSION: I have proven my opponents premises to be incorrect and his solution of green energy is impractical, harmful to the economy, and, sometimes, not even green. (longest url's shortened to make room) 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://www.stanford.edu... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...; 5. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 6. MacRae, Paul. False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears. Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. Print. 7. http://www.cato.org... 8. http://www.heritage.org...
Debate.org
