Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewJail climate change deniers.
We could also find out years from now that children aren't harmed in the production of child porn even though the evidence right now is substantial and overwhelming children are being harmed by child porn. Even though that remote possibility exists it does not mean we shouldn't jail child pornographers.
Jail climate change deniers.
We can't in good conscience risk the lives of potentially hundreds of millions of people because of an extremely remote chance the scientific consensus is wrong. You want both sides to be able to debate-- but there is nothing really to debate
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thanks opponent for a nice argument. i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them. Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable. This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing. Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation point If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win. Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already.
Climate Change is man caused
Thank you very much, I thank you for this debate.
That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
I see little relevance with your graphs about humidity and such that has anything to do with the actual topic. But since round four is for conclusion only... And as always, thanks for debating. I have learned a lot and you seem like quite the genius. Though my stance on the subject stands and I believe my arguments had relevance. But again thanks it was fun.
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change
I thank you for accepting. I like your icon by the way. I also like it that you didn't rely upon bare assertions and that you used outside sources to back up your claims. "According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions." Should Factory-Farmed Foods Be Labeled? Ronnie Cummins "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. [i]" cowspiracy.com " The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " greepeace.org " The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted." " Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."." wikipedia "In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent." Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent independent.co.uk I conclude that not only does factory farming cause the most amount of greenhouses emissions to be released directly. It also causes global Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " greepeace.org " The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted." " Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."." wikipedia "In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent." Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent independent.co.uk I conclude that not only does factory farming cause the most amount of greenhouses emissions to be released directly. It also causes global climate change via destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Releasing the stored carbon inside the trees. Thanks for reading. http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://www.greenpeace.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Long_Shadow http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://skeptics.stackexchange.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://bitesizevegan.com...
Climate change is real.
Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got your silly theory?
Climate change is real.
If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?
Climate Change is happening - NOW
Yep I agree with you
Anthropogenic climate change.
Round 4 defense. My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again. "Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to. Proof: "There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative "My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal. "Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.
Governments should require that funded climate data be posted
Pro has introduced a very interesting and, on the surface, at least, a proposal that promises a new wave of openess in the Climate-Change controversy. Unfortunately, I have taken up the thankless task of refuting the proposal. As written, there are actually three different outcomes that would adequately refute the proposal; first, to successfully argue that governments NEED not impose a condition..., second that governments SHOULD not impose a condition..., and third that governments should impose a condition AGAINST... I contend that my arguments will satisfy at least two of the three options. I am not going to defend either side of the climate-change controversy. I will leave that for another debate. What I will show is the fallicy in assuming that a full public disclosure of of the raw data, the processes, the software, and the findings will somehow further the further the progress toward determining the truth of the facts. Furthermore, 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. I am certain, no matter on which side of the climate-change question your allegience currently lies, by the end of Round 3, you will be convinced to vote CON on the resolution as proposed. My first refutation of the resolution is simple. There is no reason to believe that public disemination of the raw data, the processes used to qualify and quantify that data, the software used to accomplish those processes nor the daily findings that result from those processes would change the Public's perception of the issue. In fact, the polititions who must vote to fund this research (at least in the US) are very attuned to the pulse of the voters and their support or opposition to spending taxpayer money for it and, for the most part, those taxpayers do not rely on data or facts, they rely on someone to tell them how they feel about the question. Both the "Liberal" and the "Conservative" sides of the issue have their pundits to tell them whether to support the research or not, whether to believe what the other side tells them or not and no amount of facts are going to make a perceptable differencein the way a person feels. This is not an argument of opinion, it is an argument based upon historical precedents: In November of 1963, an assasin shot and killed the President of the United States in Dallas, TX. The Warren Commission reviewed the evidence of the investigation into that shooting and the background of the assasin, Lee Harvey Oswald and issued its findings almost a year later, in September of 1964. [http://www.archives.gov...] The report spelled out the facts of the case and drew the conclusion that Oswald had acted alone. But conspiracy theorists had made up their minds that there were more than one shooter, that Oswald was acting under orders of the USSR or Castro's Cuba or The CIA or the FBI or whatever else they could dream up. Finally, after a long investigation by the Assinations Records and Review Board, they published their findings in September of 1998, confirming what the Warren commission has stated 34 years earlier. [http://www.archives.gov...] Did that put an end to the conspiracy theory? In 1947, the US Air Force launched Project Sign, later to become known as Project Blue Book which listed the results of investigations of thousands of reports of UFO's from the Roswell, New Mexico incident through January 1969. In January of 1970, those files were made available to the public, on the assumption that the facts would end the arguments over the validity of UFO sightings and Alien Invasion fears. [http://www.bluebookarchive.org...] Didn't work. In 2009, the first draft of the National Health Care Reform Bill was published both in the Congressional Quarterly and on the Internet. Well, I guess that stopped all of the misconceptions about the bill, including the "government coming between you and your doctor" and the "Obama Death Panels." Also in 2009, the CDC issued the warning against H1N1 or "Swine" flu, urging people to take precautions. Later, they came out with a vaccine that their test data proved safe. Now, in December, after over 10,000 people have died from H1N1 inthe US, people are still convinced the vaccine is "bad" and refuse to get vaccinated or even have their children vaccinated. [http://news.cnet.com...] If governments require raw data (which almost always contains "flaws"), processed data (just another term for changing data or simply eliminating some of it), the software, (source code for analysis?) and findings within 30 days, both sides, pro and con, will have a field day pulling one line quotes, massaging figures, adding adjectives and just plain lying, and using the data they know nobody is really going to research to prove them wrong. They (both sides) will use this data to inflame the public and people, being people, are usually more afraid of change than keeping the status quo, so nobody wins and, many times there is a good chance the public is the ones that are going to get hurt.
it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
Although my opponent did not offer a source for the quote she used, I figured I should still respond to the quote so I can clear up the confusion my opponent seems to be having. She quotes then Cardinal Razinger as saying, "When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." My opponent seems to think that the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as the voter has other reasons other than the abortion issue. THIS IS NOT TRUE. The key phrase is "proportionate reasons". In this context, "proportionate reasons" basically means "of equal value". "We thus might ask: What kind of reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia politician? Here is a clear case: Suppose that in a given election either Candidate A or Candidate B is morally certain to win, but it is not clear which will win. Candidate A"s only policy is that he supports abortion, while Candidate B has two policies: He supports both abortion and euthanasia. In this case, more harm will be done to society by the election of Candidate B, and so based on principles touched on by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73, one may cast one"s vote in such a way as to limit the harm done to society." [2] At any rate, in our current political climate, there has never been a presidential election where both candidates were pro-choice, so my opponent's claims that "proportionate reasons" exist is just wrong. And since proportionate reasons don't exist in the current political climate, the resolution has been proven false. Finally, my opponent said, "voting for a prochoice candidate despite them being prochoice is not engaging in propaganda for that law. and is not voting for it, it's voting in spite of it."the quote by con is irrelevant. and con hasn't even engaged my reasoning about how voting for a prolife candidate likely won't change anything anyway." My response: That's not what then Cardinal Ratzinger said. He said, "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia," Sounds like the then Cardinal Ratzinger says voting for such a person would be a problem for a Catholic. And whether or not things "likely won't change" is irrelevant to this debate. We're not debating that. We're debating whether or not the Catholic Church is ok with its members voting pro-choice. Sources: 2.http://jimmyakin.com...
Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.
My opponents case goes as follows: 1. Global warming is an issue (exists and is man made) 2. Global warming causes disasters and hurts the economy. Now, my arguments on (2) proved environmental regulation bad. Further, (1) is the most important issue. If 1 is proven not to exist, or not man made I win the debate as fighting a natural problem spending billions of dollars is futile and a waste, and if global warming does exist (something my opponent has not responded too) I then win the debate. I have proven both of these points false. I will proceed: Fraud and methodology: Now, my opponent goes on to claim my data is false because it does not cover the whole world, (surface scanners) yet I have proven this. ANY surface scanner in an urban area will logically have a higher temperature reading then one in a rural one. I have proven throughout this debate this dilemma affected all surface scanners in all countries as all countries made this mistake. My opponent also ignores my case on how computer models (computer models is all of the evidence pro global warming) is highly flawed. Based on all of the computer model data, their predictions have always been wrong and exaggerated. [1] Every model made over guesses the amount of warming and exaggerates it ALL. As the IPCC notes in the book I am citing: “Models still show significant error, important large scale problems also remain. … Important small scale processes cannot be explicitly represented in models … Significant uncertainties, in particular are associated with resentation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change”.[1] This essentially means all of the global warming fata is flawed. My opponent ignored this point, although I did state it last round, hence the point still stands. My opponent then claims my data on scandals is not enough, I actually agree, BUT this does show large studies (the IPCC) are no longer accurate, and if readers scan my opponents sources and then the sources within the source, it always cites the IPCC. My opponents data is now highly faulty on those grounds. The point still stands. CO2 and N2O: My opponents claim here is his evidence refutes my CO2 claim, this is actually false. Nowhere in this debate (I have read your responses 3 times just by that comment) did I actually see you do; a) even find a correlation b) show that cycles from 1000s of years ago find a correlation. My opponent finds only a correlation in modern day times in round two, but this is highly refutable with natural cycles. There are major cycles every 11,000 years or so (stated) and minor changes every 1500 years or so (also stated). Now, the current warming phase was highly predictable using the 1500 year cycle data. This 1500 year cycle is well documented.[2] This fully explains the current warming phase. Further if CO2 was a climate factor, if we saw natural increases in CO2 there would also be natural rises in temperature hundreds of years ago, and there is no correlation, therefore the correlation fails on a scientific basis. Using figure 2.4 in source (1) we observe no statistical correlation, CO2 is low temperature may be high or vice versa. This right here disproves the theory. (If CO2 actually had an impact, natural increases would also raise temperature, it did not, hence it has no correlation) N2O may or may not make warming, but as I pointed out last round N2O is mainly a natural gas, and it does not have enough ppm (parts per million) to have any effects. My opponent ignores this analysis. My opponent also introduces new arguments last round (methane etc, never mentioned before this point) which is a conduct violation and basic DDO informal rules mean these arguments are thrown out. My opponent argued CO2 and N2O the whole debate, adding new substances last round is a conduct violation AND is discounted. May the judge rule “jury, ignore the previous statement.” Ice Sheets You NEVER argued overall ice sheets, you argued the same ones I argued, hence your argumentation here is a LIE. I have argued this whole debate: Northern ice expanding Southern ice expanding Various glaciers also expanding I covered almost every glacier, they are all expanding. My opponent this round actually dodges last rounds argumentation, hence I win the point. My opponent dropped arguments Global cooling Computer models (all of global warming “evidence”) is faulty Global warming does not exist (my opponent abandoned this idea round 3) CONCLUSION/VOTING ISSUES: My opponent dropped some of the 3 most critical sub points (two of them prove global warming is actually false) hence my opponent already loses the debate. Voting issues: 1) I have proven global warming is fake 2) I have proven if global warming exists, it is more likely due to sun cycles NOT emissions 3) My opponent dropped vital points. VOTE CON, it is futile to spend money on a natural occurrence OR it is futile to fight a non existent problem. [1] MacRae, Paul. “ Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears.” Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010. [2] Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.” Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007.
Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.
My opponents and my case are polar opposites, if proves global warming, mine debunks it. Hence my arguments actually refute his claims, and vice versa. So essentially our arguments are exactly the opposite. So my opponent has to prove: (1) Global warming exists and/or is man made This is the only thing he needs to prove, as the rest of his case is irrelevant if humans cant contribute to the warming (hence futile and a waste of time and labor to stop it, its gonna happen anyway), and prove the world is heating up (and if the following thing is not in place, this fails). So essentially my opponent has to prove two things, I have to prove: (1) Global warming is fake and/or natural. Now, this debate is easier on me, as my opponent has the BOP (being instigator and pro), and he has to prove both points, I only need to prove one to show a futile effort or a non-existent threat. So really, the BOP is on my opponent. "Facts" about global warming: My opponents main argument against the data that proves global warming faulty is my evidence is based in america, aka the surface stations. But my opponents case ignores the point: If we are failing in the US, then why would it be better in other countries? In the US, 89% of those surface stations create false results due to the fact certain obstacles (i.e. an air conditioner) create the false signals. [1] Further what my opponent misses is that this data (much of the date her nasa source talks poetic about) relies on this US data. Further, this data was and sometimes is relied throughout the whole world, so really, why would such human error not coincide. Also, for you to validate your point, you also need to prove global surface stations are NOT biased. Also, this site is based in Malaysia (my 1 source last round), and it takes more then US data, and disproves NASA's famed graphs. [2] My opponent then claims these "scientists" account for the.... differences so to speak. The funny thing is these scientists fail in other areas in the same thing. Much of their data relies on faulty mathematical equations that force them to do a lot of assumptions, therefore begging the question of their conclusions. [3] Also to prove they account for the urban effects, I think you must prove through studies that they have dummy variables as well. My opponent then claims my argument on fraud fails to touch every, I understand that, the argument was simply to show many of the evidences you posted may have huge errors in them, hence faulty. He then goes on about CO2, I will refute this. CO2 is NOT enough of the atmosphere to create global warming, its about 3%, and 6% of that CO2 is man made. In other words: "That means that less than 2/1,000 of all CO2 is produced by human activity. So even if we wiped out every car, power plant, jet liner, and human being from the face of the earth, there would be no noticeable effect on global CO2 levels."[4] So CO2, out of the picture. My opponent then talks about N2O, laughing gas. Over 90% of N2O is naturally produced. [5] Before we can assume this has an effect, my opponent must first now show a correlation, prove it, etc. Saying it hurts the ozone is not enough until you prove humans emit it enough to have any major effects, then find me a correlation, then we talk. My opponent then claims certain areas (specifics) are not relevant, that first ignores basic statistics and then he knows makes it easier for him to win. Individual areas are great tools, as a minority effects the majority in statistics overall. If 100 kids exist, 10 are sick, that minority has a large effect if we polled are you sick. Also for there to be global warming, the ice caps are logically suppose to be melting (to account for the rise in sea waters). If I disprove this (I did) then my opponents case crumbles. also: http://www.debate.org... http://bit.ly... No upward trend. Greenland: My opponent concedes the point claiming what happens in any one area explains the whole, that means my opponents arguments are invalid too. So I extend argument, and proceed to his arctic example: Now if your interested, there is a moving graph in the source I am providing, if you look at its data the temperature STAYS THE SAME, on average. Here is how they explain it: "Each frame of animation equals one year. As you can see the temperature does fluctuate but there is clearly no significant general rise in temperature and the portion of the red curve poking above the blue line (i.e. the period when ice would melt) is clearly not growing."[6] Essentially saying the temperatures needed t melt it are not changing in length, hence ice cannot melt. "As you can plainly see the ice is getting thicker [refers to moving picture], not thinning faster than Kojak's hair. Polar Bears will not be drowning, the Walruses will not be beaching themselves due to lack of ice (which by the way is normal and not something to get over-excited about) and the Arctic Fox probably doesn't need to go on the endangered species list because of that old faux global warming." [7] Not to mention growing glaciers. [8] Global cooling: There is ~ 11 year solar cycle, the time your data shows warming. The cycle is over, scientists are now drifting to the earth is cooling, or will begin to cool. "In fact global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel argued at the recent UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that the cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years. His explanation was a natural change in the North Atlantic circulation, not in solar activity. But no matter how you interpret them, natural variations in climate are making a comeback." [9] "Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997... Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific." [10] http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.c3headlines.com... = cooling (graphs wont post peices of.....) Benefits/Harms: Your argument only works if global warming exists, and if it is man made. If it does not exist, then only harms happen (economic). If it is man made, the regulations hurt (economic), and the other harms are inevitable, so it is futile to fight it. So, my opponent must prove both, if anything this is a sub point to the overall factors. Plus, another reason the globe is not heating up is because the atmosphere is not heating up, hence refuting all claims. [11] CONCLUSION: Vote CON, global warming is a hoax and if it exists is natural, hence my opponents case fails as it fights a nonexistent. issue or a futile natural pattern. Soures: [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://1.usa.gov... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://bit.ly... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly... [11] http://bit.ly...
Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.
Fraud, methods My computer deleted my argument, so excuse me if my arguments are mainly quotes and me rushing, I will make a final appearance last round. "Regions of the world that exhibit significant warming over recent decades is likely the result of a robust urban heat island effect - South Korea's warming climate provides evidence ... Yang et al. published an extensive study on the impact of UHI on China's warming and discovered that over 40% of the increase could be explained by the UHI effect in some urban areas. ..."[1] "Likewise, the rate of increase in the annual number of daily maximum temperature 95th percentile exceedences per year over the same time period was found to be 50% greater at urban stations than it was at rural stations."[2] Quote 1 shows global problems, quote 2 shows urban/rural problems (hinting urban island effect) in the US. Further the IPCC's data (your nasa links use that as a source) are highly flawed. I will quote is from this PHD person :P: "1. Likely sources of bias in the surface temperature record of the last 150 years, which are well known and considerable, are ignored. The amount of warming is claimed to be known with a false degree of confidence. We do not, in fact, know for certain that the earth has warmed at all. 2. The profound inconsistency between the recent warming in the surface temperature record, and the absence of warming in the satellite record, is simply shrugged off. 3. The enormous, and growing, uncertainty as to the effect of aerosols on climate is masked in the discussion, and is deliberately suppressed in predicting the future. If included, the UN IPCC 100 year prediction would include the possibility of no warming or even cooling. 4. The fact that the vast majority of all greenhouse gas emissions are natural is ignored. 5. Advances in climate science that do not support the theory of human interference have been ignored."[3] Not to mention the IPCC is dictated and subject to government review, and their computer models are subject to easy editing and have been found for frauds (basically they hid data, edited data, ignored data, and used bias computer models).[4] Also more info here. [5] The methodology AND the credibility are faulty. CO2, N2O, and all that fun stuff My opponent ignores the natural factors I have listed for global warming (like the sun, I will bring it up again this round). Co2- There is no correlation until recently, there has been no historical correlation. In the past, temperatures may be low and Co2 might be high, and vice versa. [4] For there to be a valid correlation, it must also work in the historical perspective. Also to note, even if we created ALL fossil fuels and burned them, it would go from ~380 ppm (parts per million) to 600-800 ppm, under the former amounts this planet has seen.[4] Historically no correlation, hence cannot work, its only .4% of our atmosphere and only 6% of that is man made, and human fossil fuels can barely double the number, CO2 is not a villain. N2O- 70% is natural, 30% is man made. [6] 5% of the "green house effect" is N2). [7] The low concentrations mean it has no current effect to any large extent. Also, if it has an effect then it must cool the earth or have no effect, the earth is cooling,[4] also: http://www.paulmacrae.com... As we can see from these facts, the earth has not warmed since the late 1990s (90-97) its hard to cause soemthing thats not happening (my (1) argunment, also we must look at my (2) argunment before looking at your Co2 and N2O argunments). We must look at the more likely NATURAL factors in global warming, assuming it exists. Generally undereported as the IPCC decides to ignore those factors (see above). Now, there HAS been warming in the 20th century, and according to nasa estimates we have seen an increase in solar activity in that time. Now his is important, as if sustained for a while (1850-1997) it can lead to large increases in temperture, then begin to flat line temperture, then lead to cooling. The sun plays the largest role (even in alarmists eyes) in heating and cooling cycles. In germany, people claim to have the highest sun activity in 1000 years! [4] This basic cycle is what is heaing the earth in the early 21st and late 20th century.Further, there is a scientific fact sunspots = more activity, therefore more warming. There is enough sun spots to lead to warming, hence the increases are natural [highly likely]. (note my opponent never refted this, and just ignores my data). Also there is a 1500 year cycle. This creates interglacial cycles (like the one that is ending in which we are in). The cycle is +/- 500 years. It is unstoppable global warming, like what we are in, therefore global warming prevention is poorly thought out. Overall tempertures I understand this, I have shown local cooling in these areas which rise the sea (you argue shrinking ice sheets, I countered it with an oppisite argunment). Hence my point was a counter to yours (you used it as global warming, it is hyprocritical to say I cant use it, then your evidence here is irrelevant too). So if my opponent means what he says round 2 AND this round, much of his C1 is irrelevant, hence the main leg of his case. Greenland You never refuted my evidence until now, just claimed it irrelevant. Hence you dropped my argunment (until now) and proved your C1 largely irrelevant. "This past week, climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press received an astounding report from Yakutat, Alaska, concerning the Hubbard Glacier. The glacier is advancing toward Gilbert Point near Yakutat at the astonishing rate of two meters (seven feet) per day!"[8] (so... isn't alaska part of the artic which is losing glaciers you claim?) "The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms (1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway." [9] (wait, so its thickening?) "East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades." [10]So its getting colder... Global Cooling No, my argunments also rely on NOAA.gov data. Use 1997-2012 data. downward trend. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... graph wont show, put in 1997-2012, there is a down trend. CONCLUSION: World not heating, world heating may be natural, world might be cooling, vote CON, cant fix a non stoppable or non existant problem. [1] http://www.c3headlines.com... [2] http://www.co2science.org... [3] http://www.john-daly.com... [4] Paul MacRae "False Alarm, Global Warming – Facts Versus Fears" Spring Bay Press, British Columbia Canada. [5] http://paulmacrae.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.physicalgeography.net... [8] http://www.iceagenow.com... [9] http://www.iceagenow.com... [10] http://www.foxnews.com...
Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.
My case is essentially a counter case to my opponents, so it refutes his arguments in and of itself. 1. Global warming, true? Much of the data that claims the world is heating is actually unreliable, the classic examples (cited in most global warming editorials) is the ground heaters that show massive increases, yet the funny thing is they are unreliable. First, these scanners started seeing heat at certain times, mainly around 2000. At the same time, many of these stations where previously recording no change. But in 2000, many of the recorders where moved or things where built. Many where found like this. One started seeing increased temperatures, BUT the time it saw an increase is when an are conditioner was installed next to it. [1] Now this is a problem as the air conditioner emits hot air, hence the increases in these modules can be linked to the air conditioner. Many of the recorders used where moved into urban areas when previously where rooted in the suburbs. They saw an increase, obviously, they installed them next to roads, asphalt reflects heat, metal buildings, same problems as roads, and then again a lot near air conditioners. A kid could see the problems with this. Other stations saw growth if they where rooted in suburbs, then the suburbs expanded in population, more houses roads etc. [2] As we can see this has serious problems as these highly cited materials fall into one basic problem: The extra asphalt, man made heating objects therefore emit heat near the censors confounding the result, hence there is a likely hood many of the stats you cite are, well, unreliable. Further many of the large studies that show global warming are highly exaggerated, and have been found of fraud accounts. Hence the data my opponent cites is data, but whether or not the data is fabricated is another question. [3] 89% of global warming detectors failed to meet accuracy standards due to the reasons above. [8] Quote: " The southern hemisphere of the earth has been generally cooling for the past fifty years, Hundreds of years of data show that temperature rises precede increase in CO2 levels, rather than following them, Ice cover at the north and south pole is growing, which results in more glaciers breaking away Throughout the 20th Century, temperatures have been rising on other planets in our solar system – including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, Neptune's largest moon – where few people drive SUVs. This clearly points to increased solar activity as the cause of global warming on the Earth, rather than any human activity." [10] http://a-sceptical-mind.com... (graphs) My graphs aren't posting anymore, its really annoying, is it like this for everybody? I cant ask Ima for cnfidnetial reasons. 2. Polar ice is expanding We can see from data in Greenland that the ice and snow is actually expanding, not decreasing like Al Gore would claim. As we can see: "Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year." [4] Cold war satellites (during time of their function), find that the ice is expanding continually in Greenland, and not decreasing. These stations first received 4 feet of snow, per fall, but in 2006 many of the stations where semi-burried by the snow. The site, formerly alive, is now buried in snow, while greenland ice expands. [5] Now what about overall arctic ice volume? Using US navy data the volume of the ice is increasing and the ice is expanding. [6] "The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice." [6] So the thin ice is being defeated, this implies that the ice is getting thicker, this requires colder temperatures, this is an "arrow to the knee" for global warming proponents. How can ice get thicker under warmer temperatures, and how can formerly thin ice get thicker? 3. Global cooling? Now, this is generally pushed to the side in most climate change debates. Well yaddy blah blah blank my liberal science teacher said X. People are mainly going of knee jerk reactions look towards the "majority". Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. [7] Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease. "As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states." [8] 4. Even if the earth is warming, it may be natural. http://www.forbes.com... (page two graph) Due to the predicatable fluctuations, we can assume we could predict the cycles and it also shows that global warmign is also caused by a natural cause. Also: http://www.isil.org... (half way down graph[s]) This also shows the earths temperture is constantly changing, and we can assume it is a natural fluctuation. With this data, the resolution is negated as even if you prove the global wamring scare, you need to explain the natura fluctuations which easily explain it. If global warmign exists, the governments CANT do anything to stop natural cycles, hence it would be a waste of reasources. 5. Economic harms of regulations First if we assume humans create this phenomona, we must ask what is the cause? The most common claim is human CO2 and oil usage, natural gas etc. But these regulations DO harm the economy. Many of tese regulations are huge costs to buisness, this is hard on them as now they must eiher give up or find ways to compensate (fire workers, or declare bankrupsy), and then no body is helped. These regulations hurt buisness by raising costs, and higher costs to buisness hurt the companies, econ 101. Further, many of these regulations outsoruce jobs for the reason above, or actually make it impossible to do X here, so they do X in china as they can actually do stuff there. One perfect regulaton is the congress' plan to regulate 85% of energy, this harms big time. It is estimated to lease 85% of our energy, and prevent them from drilling on areas that could sustain us from Saudi Arabias imports for 30 years. [9] So these regulations FORCE other countries to take our supplies, well not take, but replace and indirectly take out jobs. Sorry, tese regulaitosn hurt us. CONCLUSION: My case disproves global warming claims, and proves if global warming occurs it is likely natural, hence if it doesn't exist its a waste of time, if it does exist but is natural its a waste of time, if the earth is cooling it is a waste of time, and if it hurts the economy it is one colstly downside. My case esentially refutes my opponents, and I used facts. I urge a CON vote. _________ [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://onforb.es... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://on.wsj.com... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly...
The sun drives the global climate
Others however disagree with Solanski et al. on whether sunspot activity correlates with temperature changes and on whether we are in the most active period for several thousand years. Muscheler et al. The link between the visually based sunspot numbers and solar-modulation parameter is neither straightforward nor yet understood, and also that solar modulation must have reached or exceeded today’s magnitudes three times during the past millennium... The reconstruction by Solanki et al. implies generally less solar forcing during the past millennium than in the second part of the twentieth century, whereas our reconstruction indicates that solar activity around AD 1150 and 1600 and in the late eighteenth century was probably comparable to the recent satellite-based observations. Both Muscheler and Solanski agree that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."[[Raimund Muscheler, Fortunat Joos, Simon A. Müller, Ian Snowball, 'How unusual is today’s solar activity?', Nature, 431, 1084–1087 (2004), http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Nature2005.pdf%5D%5D In other words even if the sun is having some effect the majority of climate change is still being caused by other factors of which the most likely is humans. Influence of the Sun does not seem to be so great on global warming trends. Surprisingly, even though average temperatures are still rising(the 2000s are on track to be nearly 0.2°C warmer than the 1990s. And that temperature jump is especially worrisome since the 1990s were only 0.14°C warmer than the 1980s[[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/]].), solar activity is at a minimum, as reported by NASA in April 2009: NASA, April 1, 2009 2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days: plot. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: "We're experiencing a very deep solar minimum," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century," agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. [[http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm]]
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
"Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns" Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any. Yes, there are those who believe that Science is all about hype, and they have done things like, scaring people about the MMR Immunisation (http://www.badscience.net...). Why do they do this? Simply, it makes them money. In my opinion, this is exactly the same thing happening in Climate Science these days. The movement supporting AGW is pulling in Billions, if not Trillions of dollars: for research (employment), for mitigation (legislation, taxes), and for advocacy groups (you know, to get the word out). Supporters of AGW don't really have much to stand on, yet, they continue on with the forecast of "doom and gloom" and the "end of the world". Looking at our short history in the United States, we have seen this before, with Religions: "10 Times The World Was Supposed To End And Didn't", http://www.businessinsider.com... Secondly, I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy. Essentially, by ignoring every argument put to him, claiming the great many of them are "logical fallacies" of one flavor or other, Mr. Merrill has employed logical fallacies of his own; a subtle form of ad-hominem, and "Staying on Message" (he is hoping that repeating the AGW mantra will be convincing, which may be why he does not include any further information with his assertions). His defense also smacks of the "Blind Loyalty" fallacy. Regardless, I will stick to the facts, and if I have space, I will deal with his accusations, or as many as I can within the limits placed upon us in this forum. Atmospheric CO2: True, this is a concern of AGW advocates. The problem is, it isn't a real problem. Any view that takes into account only the last 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 years is a "short sighted view", and ignores much of the evidence that tells us about the "normal" or "optimal" state of this planet. To assume that we can somehow stave off a natural warming cycle is simple arrogance. Further problems with Mr. Merrill's argument can be shown in what happens when you apply higher CO2 concentrations to plant life: http://www.nature.com... http://www.climatecentral.org... http://www.theresilientearth.com... http://dailycaller.com... Remember the economist, Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, to say "the science is settled"? Well, it isn't. We still have scientists arguing whether the CO2 increases happen BEFORE the warming, or AFTER. That is a pretty significant question, one that seems to be ignored by the IPCC and other AGW activists. We always hear the CO2 concentrations are causing the Earth to heat up, but if the HEAT really happens BEFORE the increase in temps, it kind of deflates that assumption. http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://icecap.us... http://www.nature.com... http://joannenova.com.au... Just because we think, as our ancestors of old, that WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (or the most important life-forms on the planet), doesn't make it so, and reality must be considered at some point. There are events out there that could cause the extinction of the Human Race: meteor, super volcano, nuclear war... Only ONE of those do we actually have control over. (Well, we might be able to "shoot down" a meteor ... maybe... ) Realistically, we must look at EVERYTHING that the Earth offers us. ALL temperature extremes, ALL variables. We know man has survived some of those extremes for the last 200,000 years... without benefit of the "industrialization" and "pollution" (CO2) that is supposedly causing the same thing to happen today as has been happening our whole history. (the dust bowl, 100 year floods, storms, droughts, etc...) Looking back, we don't see "man made CO2" at the same levels they are today in the 1600s, or the 1700s... so what caused these phenomena? What caused the Little Ice Age? Or the Medieval Warm Period? http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com... Interestingly, the name of the warm period about 6,000 years ago was called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Any guess why they call it "optimum"? http://en.wikipedia.org... This leads me to ask: 1) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the temperature of this planet. 2) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the CO2 concentration of our Atmosphere. 3) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing Sea Level. What is "normal", what is "optimal"? At what temperature is this earth, its ecosystems, and climate at their "best"? If we don't have an answer, there is no way to know what "abnormal" is. There is NO BASELINE from which we can judge. Atmospheric Ozone: Interestingly, every "doom and gloom" scenario brought about by AWG Climate Alarmists concerning CO2 has failed under scrutiny. The CO2 levels are INCREASING, yes, and the Temperatures have flat-lined. Increasing CO2 levels, and increasing Biomass in both the Oceans and on Land. Increasing CO2 levels, yet the Ozone Layer is recovering. http://www.esa.int... This is one of those "good arguments". It shows how science actually SHOULD work; as a solution, not a problem. Scientists identified the problems with the depletion of OZONE. They identified and defined a cause. We came to know and understand what was depleting the Ozone Layer. And, via the Montreal Protocol, Scientists worked to outline a way to fix it. Other areas, like CO2 levels in our atmosphere, aren't so well understood. Yet, today's scientists want to impose all kinds of restrictions, etc, in the same way as they did with Ozone, via the Kyoto Protocol, but without having a full understand of the CAUSE of the supposed warming we are experiencing. The Establishment has a mantra, "its all man-made", and they repeat it, often. Yet, there is very little evidence to support that position, unless you ignore HISTORY. In which case, you engage in a HUGE logical fallacy; Questionable Cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com... Oceanic: Mr. Merrill tries to call my pointing at the arctic and antarctic ice increase as a "logical fallacy". The problem? We have been told for years by AWG alarmists that the arctic ice is melting and will soon be gone. We have also been told that the arctic is disappearing, and with it, the Polar Bear. Anyone can pull the youtube videos, news reports, etc, that show how the Climate Alarmists have been using the logical fallacy, Appeal to Fear, to try to get us to "fall in line" and support the Establishment in their agenda driven science. What I have done by pointing out the growth in the ice sheets, is show that there is nothing new. Things are NORMAL. In the latest report, http://nsidc.org... , we see the Ice Sheet is currently within the standard deviation. It is NORMAL. AWG alarmists tried to use the Polar Bear by using the fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, along with the Appeal to Fear. Polar Bears are, after all, so very "cute". There are problems with the politicizing of Global Warming... we can see it here: http://polarbearscience.com... Something else to consider, with the past history of our planet, and the warm periods, including the aforementioned Holocene Optimum, how on earth did Polar Bears survive? Why aren't they extinct? If our simple warming, today, is enough for AWG alarmists to foretell their demise, why did they not die out when it was 4c warmer than it is today? They seem to have survived at least one but maybe 2 or more of these warm periods where arctic ice was all but gone. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This, again, shows a logical fallacy of Questionable Cause used by AWG alarmists. Real scientists have found the problem affecting the Polar Bear, (it wasn't climate change), it was MAN. They came up with laws and accords to help protect the Bears, and now their numbers are increasing (overall). Further, looking into the "storage of heat" in our oceans, the scientists are, again, baffled by the surprising lack of heat they seem to be storing. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... CO2 concentrations do rise in the Oceans, and so does the Biomass: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nature.com... http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... Another issue is the lack of proof for the deep ocean heat retention, and the lack of historic information. To make any speciulations with so little information is disingenuous at best. http://wattsupwiththat.com... And all "conclusions" made, so far, are "inconclusive". http://judithcurry.com... Alas, no space to deal with Mr. Morrell's fallacious avoidance tactics using fallacies.
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin
"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more." airmax1227 Acceptance.
Those affected by climate change should get compensation
It is hard to apportion blame
Debate.org
