args

PRO

• PRO

  FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and...

  Show full argument

  Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

  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 resolution was abbreviated to meet the character limits, and the full resolution is the one to debate. The purpose of this resolution is address one of the issues raised by Climategate, the scandal in which e-mail and software at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia. http://www.climate-gate.org... It's not known whether the CRU data was exposed by a hacker or by a whistleblower, but however revealed, issues persist. The scientists were revealed to be trash-talking about climate crisis skeptics, and apparently conspiring to subvert the peer review process. Those issues are put aside here to discuss another problem, the concealment of software and data from the scientific community. The revealed documents includes a README file of a scientist, "Harry," trying to reproduce the climate data published by CRU, documenting enormous difficulty doing so. the file is posted at http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com.... CRU's mission is to obtain temperature data from various sources around the world, validate and correct the data, and convert it into a gridded format useful for scientific and practical purposes. The validation and correction steps are important because the raw data includes clerical errors, instrument errors, and errors due to the heat effects of new construction near the individual collection stations. "Gridding" converts the temperature data from the randomly located collection stations to regular increments of latitude and longitude using interpolation techniques. CRU performs all of the processing functions. For research on global warming, small errors are important because the total amount of global warming examined is on the order of only a degree per century. Moreover, scientists look for "natural experiments" in which local conditions may have local climate effects. For example, rapid growth of a city many increase local pollutants or local CO2 levels, and scientists like to examine the possible local effects on temperature. Britain has a Freedom of Information Act (FIA) similar to that in the United States. FIA requests can be filed to obtain certain documents and other data developed at government expense. In Britain, someone filed a request for the data used to support claims of CO2 global warming. CRU had great difficulty complying, Climategate revealed, because the software and data files were such a mess that they could not reconstruct the results they had published. he tale of woe begins with a guy copying 11,000 files and trying, unsuccessfully, to make something of them. He discovers, for example, that there are alternate files with the same name and no identification of which file is the one that should be used, or why. NASA has similar responsibilities for climate data in the United States, and a similar FIA request was filed for supporting climate data. After nearly three years, NASA has still not complied with the request, and a lawsuit is now threatened to attempt to force compliance. http://www.thenewamerican.com... I suspect that the problems of data compliance at CRU and NASA are due to professional incompetence, not a conspiracy to cover up errors they know to have been made. What has been revealed at CRU clearly shows incompetence. Moreover, there is nothing novel about incompetently written software. A product of human nature and schedule pressures is the method of hacking at software until it appears to work, then calling it done. In the commercial world, demands from users limit incompetence through calls for bug fixes, and ultimately user abandonment of one vendor in favor of another. Those mechanisms do not apply to climate data. In the case of climate research, the tendency will be to hack at the software until it meets the expectations of developer, in this case the global warming believers at CRU. They could be innocently making a dozen small errors that tend to inflate temperatures in recent times, and no one would question the results, because expectations are met. The remedy lies in immediate public disclosure. If the software must be posted regularly, which it will have to be because new results are released regularly, then peer pressure will greatly encourage sound software engineering practices like the use of software configuration control systems. Moreover, the details of the methodologies employed for processing and analysis will be subject to peer review. CRU deals mainly with data rather than climate models, however the resolution applies to climate modeling software as well. The basic physics of carbon dioxide only accounts for about a third of the global warming it is claimed to cause, and that's not enough to cause a climate crisis. The models contain multiplying factors that are not verified by experimental measurement. All of the mechanisms should be subject to peer review and public scrutiny. A few institutions have made their model code public, but only a very few. Aside from the concerns for good science and good professional practice, the public has a right to access what it paid for, for no reason beyond the fact that they paid for it. There are exemptions allowed in FIA legislation. The exemptions are for national security, independent proprietary data, and information sealed in lawsuits. None of the exemption apply to climate research. The requests to CRU and NASA were not denied under exemptions, they just not fulfilled. Requiring disclosure before publication or within a month after publication will guarantee that the public gets what it has a right to. Climate research strongly affects public policy, so while good professional practices are important in all areas, the situation addressed by the resolution is exceptionally important. The resolution is affirmed.

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

    BM25 score: 18.51

    climate: 17.94

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

    premises: 8.65 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.80)

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

  When the molecule absorbs a photon of radiation at 4.26...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!

  In this ROUND--the final ROUND--I will explain what it is about carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane that allow them to be heat-trapping greenhouse gases. I will also briefly explain how global warming facilitates climate change and then go over the various effects of climate change that are occurring because of rising surface temperatures. Carbon Dioxide (and other Green House Gases) Generate the Greenhouse Effect by Absorbing and Emiting Infrared Radiation (a.k.a. Heat) Atoms and molecules can absorb electromagnetic radiation, but only at certain energies (wavelengths) [1]. The electromagnetic spectrum is illustrated directly below. When the sun emits energy it principally does so in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Our human eyes can only detect radiation between 300 and 800 nanometers in wavelength (1 billion nanometers = 1 meter); this is called the "visible portion" of the spectrum [1]. Radiation of a different wavelength can also be detected, but not visibly by our eyes. Radiation that falls between 700 nanometers to 1 millimeter is infrared radiation, and it can be detected indirectly as heat, or the vibrational-rotational movements of molecules [2]. (Other wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum also contribute to heat.) Carbon dioxide (illustrated below) is special because it absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in the infrared portion of the spectrum [3]; this means that it has an inclination to trap heat radiation coming both from the sun and bouncing off the Earth's surface [1]. Because CO2 absorbs heat radiation (which is a form of energy), that means the molecule will rotate and vibrate fiercely to contribute to heating (kinetic motion) and the greenhouse gas effect [1]. CO2 absorbs infrared "heat" radiation at 4.26 micrometers and 15.0 micrometer wavelengths; this causes the molecule to vibrate in several possible ways (illustrated directly below) [1]. When the molecule absorbs a photon of radiation at 4.26 micrometers wavelength, this causes it stretch either symmetrically (A in the picture above) or asymmetrically (B); when it absorbs a photon of radiation at 15.0 micrometers wavelength, this causes it to undergo one of two bending vibrations (C or D) [1]. It's this molecular phenomena that contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and to gradual global warming, as carbon dioxide and other other green house gases increase in concentration in the atmosphere [1][3]. Water vapor, methane and other greenhouse gases have identical methods of trapping heat [3]. Even though there are a variety of natural "sinks" to take up carbon dioxide and remove it from the atmosphere, the molecule continues to accumulate because of human activity and is forcing the current global warming trend [3][4]. Carbon dioxide is regarded as the fiercest driver of global warming because it is the most emitted green house gas by human activity and because it remains in the atmosphere far longer than the other major global warming gases [4]. Where it takes methane a decade to leave the atmosphere (unfortunately it converts to carbon dioxide), it takes carbon dioxide about a century to exit the atmosphere, though 20% of what is emitted will remain 800 years from now [4]. Water vapor on the other hand only stays in the atmosphere for a couple of days before it falls to Earth; this is why it's rarely discussed as a driver of global warming [4]. The Link Between Global Warming and Climate Change Rising global temperatures caused by human activity are having a drastic impact on physical and biological processes across the Earth. Besides those effects I went over in ROUND 2, there are numerous other consequences that are occurring as a result of global warming. Increasing global temperatures are causing polar sea ice and worldwide land ice to melt, which is causing oceanic sea levels to rise and coastal land to disappear. But global warming is having other adverse effects on the globe too, which includes alterations to the Earth's climate systems, changes in bird migration, greater intensity in forest fires, and a reduction in local freshwater supplies throughout the planet. According to two recent independent studies--one conducted by NASA in collaboration with the University of California, Irvine and the other by the University of Washington--the rate of sea level rise is accelerating and the oceanic sea level should be expected to rise by as much as 10 feet within the next two centuries [5]. The reason for the acceleration, the researchers say, is because the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting and it now appears to be unstoppable. The source of the problem is that warmer water (generated by anthropogenic global warming) stirred by Antarctic winds is melting the underside of the ice sheet, which is causing it to retreat and become thinner over time [5]. A 10-foot rise in sea levels would force much of Southern Florida under water (picture below) and it would cause large swathes of New York city's densely populated areas to become swamped [5]; 20 percent of Los Angeles would also find itself under water [6]. Just recently, on March 20th, NASA announced that sea level rise is threatening most of its launch pads and multi-billion dollar complexes; currently the space agency is building sea walls and moving some buildings further inland to avoid the rising sea line [7]. As the picture directly below illustrates, global warming is altering physical and biological processes in numerous ways. Global warming is generating less snow and land ice, which is resulting in a reduced freshwater supply in numerous locations around the world (including the U.S.) [8]; it is also changing rain and snow patterns and resulting in stronger storms [9]. Scientists say this is because storms feed off of latent heat energy; extra heat in the atmosphere or in the oceans (generated by global warming) nourishes storms and strengthens them [9]. There is some speculation that global warming may be decreasing the frequency of storm systems, but there is also strong evidence that storms are becoming more severe and developing more rapidly than just a few decades ago [9][10]. Besides increasing global temperatures, the current manmade warming trend is also resulting in more heat waves, more frequent droughts and intensifying wildfires [11]. Says geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck at the University of Arizona: "The [recent] fires in [Southern] California and here in Arizona are a clear example of what happens as the Earth warms, particularly as the West warms, and the warming caused by humans is making fire season longer and longer with each decade. It's certainly an example of what we'll see more of in the future" [11]. Global warming is also making seas and oceans warmer, damaging natural coral reefs [12], and melting permafrost [13]. As global temperatures rise and the oceans get warmer and become more concentrated in carbon dioxide, natural corals erode which diminishes biodiversity in the planet's oceans; global warming poses a direct threat on the coral reefs surrounding Florida, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii [12]. Global warming and climate change are having a major effect on animal and plant life around the world. Researchers with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies show that trees are now leafing earlier and that some species are retreating into higher latitudes as the Earth warms [13]. Among the alarming findings [13]: polar bears are seeing their numbers plummet and their sources of food become scare, which is causing them to resort to cannibalism; earlier breeding and migration of birds worldwide; earlier peak migration of Atlantic salmon; earlier spring flight of butterlies and mollusks in California; earlier breakup and later freezing dates in lake and river ice cover; marmots are emerging 38 days earlier in the Rockies; earlier egg-laying of birds; long-term changes within fish communities; earlier pollen release in some plant species; a rapid decline in the Emperor penguin population in Antarctica; long-term decline in krill stock in the Southern Oceans; rising plankton abudance in cooler ocean waters, the opposite in warmer waters. Global warming and climate change clearly has a large array of effects [13]. The effects on human life are numerous, but global warming is also currently transforming agricultural yields around the world; the picture below illustrates the long-term impact of global warming on agricultural output around the world [14]. [1] (http://www.wag.caltech.edu...) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [4] (http://www.ucsusa.org...) [5] (http://www.thestreet.com...) [6] (http://www.businessinsider.com...) [7] (http://news.yahoo.com...) [8] (http://news.mongabay.com...) [9] (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...) [10] (http://www.accuweather.com...) [11] (http://news.yahoo.com...) [12] (http://www.nwf.org...) [13] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov...) [14] (http://www.imf.org...)

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

    BM25 score: 18.48

    climate: 6.99

    premises: 5.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.20)

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

    change: 3.21

    premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)

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

    real: 8.28

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

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

  Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average....

  Show full argument

  Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

  The population has been on a sharp incline since just a bit after the Industrial Revolution but I concede a SLOW DOWN of population growth OVERALL is in conjunction with 1) countries that implemented a one/two child rule, most notably China, who is still a leader in population numbers, 2) the rampant epidemic of AIDS, civil wars, droughts, & food scarcity in developing countries and 3) the urbanization and industrialization of countries. In an agrarian and/or semi nomadic lifestyle, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at a young age on a farm, pulling weeds and harvesting or simple workshop labor. They become a source of income & the more you have the better. Since there is no retirement plan in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age. In a developed urban & industrial society, the economic value of children declines & children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. Not only are chances for employment at an early age diminished, but educational requirements explode dramatically so kids need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s & nowadays into their 30s. In a cost benefits analysis a child cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts as it has OVERALL. BUT .... The population has only SLOWED DOWN in growth not declined overall and as a population grows, however slow, it unavoidably consumes more and more resources and needs more and more land. My contention is that the Earth has a limited amount of life sustaining resources that should be taken into account. Their is only so much freshwater, there is only so much arable land we can grow food on, there is only so much oxygen. Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ? Any life form, if the pollution grows higher then the area can sustain, unavoidably dies off. A lion pride that produces too many offspring and eats up all the animals in the area, will have to expand their territory in hopes of finding more food or die from starvation. A virus once it has overwhelmed and consumed all of a bodies energies, resources to the point that it can no longer maintain its systems, causes the body to die. it is a proven scientific fact multiple time & by various species. Humans may be a higher order thinking life form, but we are still a life form, & unavoidably we depend on the systems in place on Earth for our survival just like any other life form living on Earth. We can continue to grow and deplete resources and stretch life styes to their limits, all the while causing the extinction of species that are cogs in the wheels of the systems that sustain us, causing those systems to eventually collapse. It has been our business as usual for the past 100 years and can probably last for another 30-50 but why not implement actions to stop or at least extend the period of time BEFORE system collapses ? HOW those populations controls are written and implemented is a whole nother can of worm lol Religion, country infrastructure, medical systems, cultural traditions and views on family, ect ect, would play a part in any laws and policies. But I contend that with out some form of population control, no climate change/sustainable policies will make any meaningful impact. You can create policies that say every person is only able produce about 3,000 pounds a day ( which can be reduced with car pooling, sustainable energy, ect ) and that takes into account an urbanized citizen with access to a car, a home with electricity, and consumer goods and assumes the gradual industrialization of developing countries. With a global population of over 7 BILLION that equals about 21,000,000,000,000 pound of carbon A DAY. The oceans can absorb about 30%, though that is declining due to various climate, ecology, and environmental reasons, about 40% accumulates in the atmosphere, and about 30% is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. An average mature tree (at least 10-15 years old) can only absorb 48lbs A YEAR so each person on Earth would need about 33 MATURE EVERGREEN TREES each to be carbon neutral. ( thats just for our own HUMAN consumer needs and does not take into account the habitant needs of other animals, ecosystem balance, ect ) SO as the population grows, we will need more trees to be carbon neutral, and we can't cut down these trees, so eventually they will take over the arable land we need to feed ourselves. Personally population control policies I personally propose would be : 1) contraception is easily available, low cost or free 2) abortions are legal, easy available and at low cost - there would be attached policies and requirements but thats another issue 3) sex education is more readily available & a required course in public middle & high school & includes sexual misconduct laws & sentencing, responsible relationship guidelines and actions, sensitivity training - private schools that don't receive ANY federal or state funding, and schools with a religious guideline & charter are exempt from sex education classes as required a course but may not criminalize students from obtaining or possessing sex education materials unless it actively disrupts teaching when it is conducted (this time does not include recess, breaks between classes,mealtimes) 4) murders/harassment/repetitive slander/&intimidation against people, businesses, or organizations that perform sexual disease testing,abortions,adoptions,foster care,family planning & reproductive health service, shall be persecuted as a felony/hate crime 5) a two child limit on all citizens - those that wish to have more offspring agree to renounce all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding 6) adoption policies and procedures should be fast tracked and more openly available to all within the 2 child limit- excluding foster care and those that have renounced all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding More stringent policy would be : 1) pregnancy before the age of 25 (better if 30 ) results in a large fine, & a choice between abortion or adoption - if the mother chooses neither options, she relinquishes all right to federal & state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, & crowd funding I base these policies on on factual financial, social obligations and pressures of raising a child and the impact of a growing population on the environment. I an not religious therefor I do not take religion values into account THOUGH I do know and understand that religious values would be brought into any policies that touch on reproductive rights, for or against them, because many of these policies goes against religious teachings. My argument is that these policies are to promote social and environmental good and/or agendas FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIACTION and not for promoting religious good or agendas so religion should not be involved as that

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

    BM25 score: 18.12

    climate: 10.82

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

    premises: 3.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.63)

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

    change: 7.05

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

    premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)

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

  If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely...

  Show full argument

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

  1 ========= My Argument #1 First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link. Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA). 3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant. 3 ========= My Argument #2 There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever. While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths: --- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means) --- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means) --- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1) Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually. Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs. (1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.

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

    BM25 score: 18.10

    climate: 14.11

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

    premises: 4.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.00)

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

    change: 2.04

    premises: 1.68 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.65)

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

    real: 1.96

    premises: 1.70 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.65)

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)
• PRO

  The gov't has been doing that with oil for decades and...

  Show full argument

  The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

  What do you mean you cant just invest. The gov't has been doing that with oil for decades and you never complained. We need The gov't has been doing that with oil for decades and you never complained. We need real energy soulutions for the modern world and need to stop guzzling on saudi oil.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-needs-to-do-much-more-to-combat-climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 18.00

    climate: 7.79

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

    sourceText: 1.15 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.93)

    change: 6.10

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

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)

    real: 4.11

    premises: 3.87 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.24 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.30)
• PRO

  Very well I can do the same I guess. ... Here are some...

  Show full argument

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

  Ok so instead of arguing and coming up with evidence you just decide to discredit my sources. Very well I can do the same I guess. In response to your link from the Committee of Environment and Public Works we are only looking at the minority page. Plus its their blog. Sure they may have cited resources but they are only citing sources that fit in with their agenda. Are they going to give you any bi-partisan view? Of course not. Senator Inhofe comes from a state where oil Very well I can do the same I guess. In response to your link from the Committee of Environment and Public Works we are only looking at the minority page. Plus its their blog. Sure they may have cited resources but they are only citing sources that fit in with their agenda. Are they going to give you any bi-partisan view? Of course not. Senator Inhofe comes from a state where oil is king, I find it a little hard to take him too seriously. Most of the research talks about a global temperature model which hasn't really be considered accurate. It seems more like a twisting of words more than anything. After reading through some of them like this one http://www.npr.org... it sounds more like they are unsure. Those books I suggested are some of the resources that I cited my information from. Those books are all interrelated to each-other and allows the reader to look at things on a broader scale. Tim flannery has a cited section in his book. He isn't just making up facts on random and publishing them. Sustaining the Earth is peer reviewed by other experts in the field. You can even find their names and credentials in the book. You can even find all of the research that was cited. Fritjof Capra system theories is a very important book. It is examining various natural systems and their affects. Such as the Carbon cycle or ocean currents. It gives a viewpoint on all parts and gives a better understanding on system affects and what happens when we change them for better or for worse. Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy is not totally using hydrogen as a resource. It also talks about, mismanagement of fossil fuels, the over estimate of current oil fields, and the hydrogen cycle. Please if you are going to complain about the sources read them at least before you do. Clearcutting was back in response to the previous round,here is my statement "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". and yours-This is an opinion I made that argument because clear-cutting is promoting erosion. When the rain comes from the remainder of the rain forest it washes away the rich topsoil and leaves the farmers with bare land that they cannot farm on. Plus by removing the trees they are eliminating all the nutrients that would go back and replenish the ground there fore breaking the carbon cycle. Yes the internet is an awful place for sceintfic journals. All you get mainly is tid bits and newspaper quotes from the journals rather than all the research. Plus if we are truely trying to use these as sole resources then you must play by the rules. Many of these arguments that you are presenting fail the third rule of appeal to athority, in other words they have a bias. My sources are contained in many of those books. I have backed up my information. You still haven't responed to the natural rate article or anything else in the articles that i have mentioned previously. Here are some more though. http://cdiac.ornl.gov... http://laps.fsl.noaa.gov... The burden of proof is on me however you have done very little to dispute my claims. When I give you my resources you balk and complain. I fail to see how this is a productive use of our time. You said for me to show a relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... You have failed to cite any specific sources that refute my claim. All you have done is attempt to dispute my sources and discredit them. I don't think its voter bias that causes you to lose but rather poor argumentation skills, poor evidence, and lack of tact. Please try and find specific sources not a link to a government blog to a list. That would not fly on any professional paper. I mean you just bashed Man Bear Pig when he presented sources that actaully have some crediblitly to disputing Global Warming instead. On a side note Man Bear Pig I would love to have a debate with you on the subject and I am keenly interested on more of your points. I would be very appreciative if you could perhaps email some of your points. I enjoy looking at both sides and its very rare that I see the other side presented so well, kudos to you.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Climate-Change-is-a-problem-and-needs-to-be-addressed./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.97

    climate: 9.21

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

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

    change: 8.56

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.32 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.59)
• PRO

  Relied upon: To trust or place confidence in...

  Show full argument

  Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon

  Resolved: Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon Definitions: Global climate models: Mathematical models which are used to predict future temperature changes under various scenarios http://en.wikipedia.org... Relied upon: To trust or place confidence in http://dictionary.reference.com... Round one will be for acceptance only.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-climate-models-are-accurate-enough-to-be-relied-upon/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.88

    climate: 17.43

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

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

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

  Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says...

  Show full argument

  Climate Shift

  I thank my opponent for their response. "Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says 'the scientist say its right, so its right.'" Actually what I'm saying "Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says 'the scientist say its right, so its right.'" Actually what I'm saying is that scientists have proven sufficiently that it's real, so it is real. As for the rest of my opponents argument, it might be compelling to consider if it was confirmed by any evidence. Since my opponent cited no sources, we can only assume that this is only from his personal knowledge and expertise. A) my overwhelming bulk of sources overrides this. B) My opponent is not an environmental scientist, and even if he was, his opinion would be drowned by the 95% consensus Furthermore, my opponents points regarding the shift being "normal" should be cross referenced with my points regarding the scientific consensus that it is not "normal."

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

    BM25 score: 17.67

    climate: 12.85

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)

    real: 4.43

    premises: 4.08 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.93)
• PRO

  In the case of climate data, it is used as a basis for...

  Show full argument

  Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

  My case for requiring the posting of publicly-funded data related to climate research boils down to three points: C1. It will allow review of the data for error by other scientists. C2. It will put peer pressure on the originating scientists to use better methodologies, such as software configuration control. C3. The public has a right to the products of work paid for by taxpayers. Con did not address any of my three points. Instead, he introduced two negative contentions. N1. Pro claimed that public controversy would continue regardless of whether data is disclosed or not. I never claimed that disclosure would end public controversy. I don't doubt that there are people among the public who will not alter their positions regardless of what is revealed. We should not care about that. Dissent is protected, even if it is not well-founded. However, until there is disclosure of what climate crisis advocates have done, there is no possibility of achieving a consensus on it, either by the public or among scientists. We may not ever get a public consensus, but there is a possibility of getting closer agreement among scientists. That will not happen until disclosure of research data and methods is accomplished. N2. Con goes on to claim, "I will show how unlimited public access to all, and especially preliminary data will only serve to further fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time." So for example, if the official position is that the earth is the center of the universe, allowing access to data that shows the earth revolves around the sun would similarly, "fire the flames of rhetoric that serve to obscure what may well be the most crucial issue of our time." "Our time" in that case being the Sixteenth Century. It is precisely because a scientific issue is important that data ought to be disclosed, not suppressed. Con implied I wanted "preliminary data" disclosed. The resolution makes it clear that disclosure of source data and processing software is required only one month *after* publication. No preliminary data need ever be disclosed. It sometimes happens that a particular line of scientific inquiry proves ultimately fruitless, in which case no results are published and nothing ever need be disclosed as a consequence. When a result is published it is believed by the originator to be reliable. In the case of climate data, it is used as a basis for public policy decisions. If it supposed to be the basis for decision making, then it is appropriate that the means by which it was derived be disclosed at that time, or soon thereafter. Returning to my contentions, to which Pro offered no rebuttals: C1. The revealed CRU e-mails show an intent to further subvert the peer review process. Peer review is performed by qualified scientists. Climate crisis advocates have a well-established pattern of attempting to conceal data. The most notorious example is the bogus "hockey stick" in which global temperature were claimed to have been stable for a thousand years, until they rose exponentially in the past few decades. The hockey stick graph was included in the 2001 IPCC report as proof of CO2 caused global warming. The graph was doubted from the outset, because it did not show the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, major periods of natural climate variation. With enormous effort, skeptical scientists finally managed to extract the source data from those behind the hockey stick construction and to show the specific errors in data processing that produced the spurious result. Organizations such as the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics subsequently conducted a massive review of the scientific literature and firmly established the existence of the past climate variations. The UN removed the hockey stick from the 2007 IPCC report. The process of uncovering and correcting the errors took close to a decade, because the originating scientists would not divulge their data or detailed methodology. CRU was heavily involved in preparing the data for the bogus hockey stick. The present resolution would prevent such concealment and would enable skeptical scientists to conduct a proper review of important research. The errors in the derivation of the hockey stick might have been revealed before it was included in the 2001 IPCC report. Currently there is considerable controversy over recent temperature data that show sharp recent temperature rises. Allegations include claims that much of the recent proof of global warming is derived from the rings of three trees in Siberia, which is claimed to be given a high weight in multiple sets of climate data. Originators of the data are extremely reluctant to reveal their data and methods. The current resolution would help resolve the issue. Note that NASA has refused to comply with FIA requests made in 2007. The present resolution would have required contemporaneous disclosure. C2. The accepted professional practice for industry is to use a software configuration control system. This is applied both to program code and to data files. So if one wishes to recover the results at some specific time in the past, the configuration control system will automatically reconstruct the software and data sets for the desired day. CRU could not do that, so they could not comply with FIA requests even if they wanted to. To my knowledge, no one has claimed that being unable to reproduce past results is an acceptable practice in the scientific world. Forcing immediate direct disclosure solves the problem in one sense, because outsiders can then track the data. However, once scientists at CRU and elsewhere realize they will be forced to disclose, by far the easiest way to comply is to do what they should have always done -- implement a configuration control system. The US military systematically requires its contractors to implement such systems, and they sometimes require that the government be able to access the system remotely in real time. In other words, the military does not allow disorganized software development. While the resolution does not require such high standards of scientists, the resolution strongly encourages improved practices. The benefit is that the taxpayers get higher quality work for their money. C3. Why has Con failed to address the public's right to get access to what they have paid for? I have allowed that there are certain exemptions to the general rule of disclosure. Climate research does not fit any category of exemption. FIA requests have not been denied under any claim of exemption, the requests are just arbitrarily delayed or ignored. The resolution would put an end to concealment through delaying tactics. The CRU e-mails include internal requests to destroy past e-mail files so they could not be uncovered by FIA requests. CRU also admits to having destroyed original climate data, although they claim they did so to save storage space. Immediate disclosure puts an end to the destruction of scientific data to conceal it. Any one of my three contentions is sufficient to support the resolution. So far Con has addressed none of them. The resolution is affirmed.

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

    BM25 score: 17.61

    climate: 16.08

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

    premises: 6.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.42)

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

    real: 1.19

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.23 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.24)
• PRO

  Both parties are (for international standards) right wing...

  Show full argument

  CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

  I try not to have the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. The American government is full of *corruption-* sorry- **lobbyism** so votes don't change anything really. A good example is Obama-care which was the idea of free healthcare for everyone, but now isn't free, isn't universal and is tried to be abolished. Both parties are (for international standards) right wing and in their own information bubble, so that there isn't a discussion about things like minimum wage, healthcare, prisons, police etc. because everyone just starts yelling at ones and thinks they're right. The only option for a small group would be effective terrorism (We blow up 1 school every week, until *this* has changed or similar) and for a societal class to become aware of its power and destroy the government until there is not a fingernail of establishment left. ​ But that probably doesn't happen. Not because my conclusion is wrong, but because the establishment pushes nationalism to an unhealthy amount in the heads of every American.

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l77o8v/cmv_there_is_no_legal_way_to_bring_real_change_in/
  • score

    BM25 score: 17.42

    climate: 0.68

    sourceText: 0.68 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.14)

    sum: 5.47 (product 2.32, product 2.77, product 0.39)

    sum: 2.44 (product 2.09, product 0.35)

    change: 10.11

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)

    real: 6.63

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

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)