PRO

  • PRO

    With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon,...

    Climate Change is a real issue

    The War of 1812 was a conflict fought between the United States and its allies, And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its allies. It began when the United States declared war in June 1812, And ended mostly in the situation as it existed before the war when a peace treaty agreed to earlier was ratified by the United States in February 1815. Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, While historians in North America see it as a war in its own right; it can be considered part of the American Indian Wars and Sixty Years' War. From the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France in 1803, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade to France, Which the United States contested as illegal under international law; to man the blockade, Britain pressed merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, Including Americans. American sentiment grew increasingly hostile toward Britain due to incidents such as the 1807 Chesapeake"Leopard affair, And the British were outraged by the 1811 Little Belt affair. [10] Britain supplied arms to Native Americans, Who raided European-American settlers on the American frontier, Hindering the expansion of the United States and provoking resentment. [11] Although the debate on whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America (Canada) contributed to the American decision to go to war, The reasoning for invasion was mainly strategical. [12] President James Madison signed into law the declaration of war after heavy pressure from the War Hawks in the United States Congress. [13] Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 in the United States affected its prosecution, Especially in New England, Where it was referred to as "Mr. Madison's War". With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon, Britain adopted a defensive strategy, With offensive operations initially limited to the border and the western frontier, With help from its Native American allies. American military defeats at the Siege of Detroit and the Battle of Queenston Heights thwarted attempts to seize Upper Canada, Improving British morale. American attempts to invade Lower Canada and capture Montreal also failed. [14] In 1813, The United States won the Battle of Lake Erie, Gaining control of the lake and defeating Tecumseh's Confederacy at the Battle of the Thames, Thereby defeating Britain's largest Native American ally, A primary war goal. The Americans made a final attempt to invade Canada, But the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the summer of 1814 was fought to a draw. At sea, The powerful Royal Navy blockaded American ports, Cutting off trade[15] and allowing the British to raid the coast at will. In 1814, The British burned Washington, But the Americans later repulsed British attempts to invade New York and Maryland, Ending invasions from Canada into the northern and mid-Atlantic states. In early 1815, After a peace treaty had been signed, But before this news had reached the Americas, The United States defeated the British Army near New Orleans, Louisiana. [16] Fighting also took place in West Florida, Where a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender. [17] In Britain, There was mounting opposition to wartime taxation and merchants lobbied for the resumption of trade with the United States. With the abdication of Napoleon, Britain's war with France ended and Britain stopped impressment generally. This made moot the issue of American sailor impressment and removed one of the original causes of the war. The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast which had a crippling effect on the American economy. [15][18] Peace negotiations began in August 1814 and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on 24 December 1814. The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on 17 February 1815, Ending the war with no boundary changes[19][20] except for the disposition of some islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, An issue that was resolved after the war. [21] A popular view is that "[e]verybody's happy with the outcome of the war. Americans are happy because they think they won, The Canadians are happy because they know they won and avoided being swallowed up by the United States, And the British are happiest because they've forgotten all about it";[22] although indigenous nations are generally seen among historians as the real losers. News of the peace finally reached the United States in February 1815, About the same time as news of the victory at New Orleans;[23] Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, Leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, A period of national unity. [24] While Britain quickly forgot about the war, Nationalistic mythology around it took hold in both the United States and Upper Canada. Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results by historians. [25][26][27] The failure of the invasion of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/2/
  • PRO

    Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if...

    climate change is fake

    While you do have a point, it doesn't make sense. The American people tend to turn a blind eye to the topics that they are not interested. If the warming is not happening, how do you explain the strange temperature jumps that have occurred over the past few years? Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if there was no cause? As I have said, the American people won't focus on something if it isn't interesting or food. So the media spotlight drifted off to Oak Island and the Alaskan Gold Rush TV shows. The people don't care about it, so they don't pay attention. There's also something for you to think on. What happens to the chemicals that are emitted when gasoline and fuel burn? What happens when an oil rig goes down in flames, releasing hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the oceans? Coca-Cola can remove the rust of your car's bumper, what happens to all of those fumes? It's been proven that breathing in the burning chemicals poisons you, so where do the chemical fumes go?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/climate-change-is-fake/1/
  • PRO

    Can you prove that they are wrong? ... No, since they...

    The big lie of climate change

    Can you prove that they are wrong? No, since they are already happening right now over in Africa where it is hard for africans to make a living off the land and deserts across the world are already expanding, temperatures fall drastically over a long period of time in Winter and rise drastically over a long period of time in the summer. Have you looked at this year and saw that is was still 80 degrees in March and April?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    I can prove it, just wait a 100 years. ... And I can...

    The big lie of climate change

    I can prove it, just wait a 100 years. And I can prove god: Kill yourself and see if you go in front of god in the after-life.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of...

    The big lie of climate change

    If the world rises by: (in F) 1.8 degrees; stronger hurricanes, flooding in Northern Europe. (around Netherlands) 3.6 degrees; Shanghai will be submerged, Heat waves across Europe, Glaciers feeding India's rivers melt causing flooding, Plants become heat stressed, emitting CO^2 rather than storing it causing the Global warming process to speed up, forest fires, drying riverbeds 5.4 degrees; The Amazon Rain Forest, Also called the lungs of the world since it produces 10% of the world's oxygen, is killed off by a combination of of drought and fire. It demise release huge amounts of CO^2 into the atmosphere. Elsewher, billions starve as crop yields dwindle. Swathes of Africa, India, and China are now wastelands. Around 80% of the Aric Sea ice has melted and would raise global sea levels up by 84 feet. Submerging many low land countries like Bangledesh. 7.2 degrees; sea levels rise 3 feet year causing Britain to be a bunch of small islands. Florida and many other parts of the U.S. is submerged under water. Dessertification causes people in the Mediterranean to abandoned. In northern latitudes, the melting of permafrost increases raises sea levels yet furthur. 9.0 degrees; All rain forests are all now deserts and all ice has been melted causing sea levels to be more than 197 ft than it is now. Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of food 10.8 degrees; As oceans get warmer they can't support marine life, Stagnant seas release hydrogen sulfide that poisons the land. If flammable methane is ignited (by like lightning), huge firballs sweep across the land, causing more loss of life. Source: Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013 DK

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    Not until the spread of the Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, has man possessed the ability to adversely alter, on a global scale, the geologic and climatic cycles that have existed for millennia. Planet earth, which man calls home, is approximately 5 billion years old. The science of paleontology tells us that man is a relative new comer to the planet. Modern man did not arrive on the scene until approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Developments in hunting, agriculture, literacy, and the sciences, have allowed man to thrive and inhabit nearly every corner of the planet. However, this success has not been good for the earth. The world's population has recently surpassed 6 billion and the developed countries community models and lifestyles are not sustainable. Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and entertainment construction has spread across the surface of the planet like an oil slick. We are depleting resources and altering ecosystems at an alarming rate. Only now are we beginning to comprehend the long-term effects of more than a century of environmental ignorance, neglect, and apathy.

  • PRO

    No new arguments in the last/4th round Failure to follow...

    Climate Change is caused by Humans

    Rules- 1.) No "K's" 2.) Stay on topic 3.) NO TROLLING 4.) Keep it respectable and civil 5.) No new arguments in the last/4th round Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent Structure- R1- Acceptance only R2 - Each side provides their claims R3 - Rebuttals R4 - Closing Arguments The burden fo evidence will be shared equally for I have to prove it is caused by humans and Con has to prove it's caused by natural aspects. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate

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

    Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data...

    The political science of climate change

    I thank CON for offering his comments this final round. I will do my best to address everything that is relevant, since I have been accused of not doing so. Agenda 21 CON has accused me of not addressing Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a document prepared by the United Nations which offers suggestions on how do develop in a sustainable fashion [1][2]. It is a non-binding report full of policy suggestions of the type the UN frequently puts out [3][4]. Of course, he is correct. I did not address it because it really doesn’t fit in with any of the resolutions being discussed here. Green Guilt: the IPCC I would like to thank CON for providing some support for his claims. Unfortunately, I find his source lacking. I started to rebut each point on the page CON linked to, but realized that I would quickly be over my character limit. This sort of conspiracy theory website is akin to a Gish Gallop. Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data and reports are used for political purposes, that there are discussion on how best to present the position of the material, or that contributors to papers are sometimes determined by internal politics, does not mean that the IPCC’s purpose is to mislead people via Green Guilt. Eugenics Again, I would like to thank CON for bringing some sources to bear, even though they are again quite lacking. Recognizing that overpopulation is a real problem [5], and noting that it has an impact on other human caused problems, such as global warming, is not eugenics. Even if there were some nut-jobs proposing things such as CON suggests in the 1970s [6], this does not mean that eugenicists are prevalent today, or that they are in positions of power. Finally, that some wealthy individuals promote responsible parenthood and family planning options is not eugenics. The Elites It seems that CON has dropped the argument that so called “elites” are manipulated into believing that global warming is a real threat. Loose Ends CON has made several claims at the end of his comments that are irrelevant. He has attacked the scientific enterprise, expanded his conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, and even made the case that increases in CO2 may be beneficial. I will not be addressing these because they are not relevant to the resolutions being discussed. Final Thoughts CON made three main arguments in the first round, all of which I have addressed. The burden to demonstrate these resolutions sits with CON, and he has not met his burden, as I have shown. I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate; I don’t generally debate deniers, it has been interesting. Sources: [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [2] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org... [3]http://www.slate.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://howmany.org... [6] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

  • PRO

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation...

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea…

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even greater pressure on freshwater resources in the next century. As a result international tensions over water use are likely to escalate into conflict – water wars. Free market approaches provide the best means of avoiding such conflicts, as countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. And creating a commodity price for water also means that demand can be substantially reduced, so that there is more to go around and pressures are relieved.

    • https://debatewise.org/3045-water-resources-a-commodity/
  • PRO

    Your response: yes it can (but no source). ... Unless you...

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

    I will use this round to respond to your sources and claims. --- 1. 1 --- "Peak" warming You suggested that I should focus on "peak" (instead of "delayed") warming. In Round 3, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit was your source. But it discusses peak EMISSIONS not peak WARMING, And it supports my position not yours! If emissions had peaked in 2015, ECIU says world emissions must be ZERO FOREVER starting in 2070 to achieve "2C max rise forever. " What ECIU calls "net-zero, " I call "returning to the stone age. " Since emissions still haven't peaked, It says we will need negative emissions for half the Century. ECIU's best idea to achieve net-zero: plant trees. This is laughable, But I will accept planting trees as a high priority. The other good idea (storing CO2 underground) "offers limited potential, " aka won't work. --- 2. 1 --- Earth's History You said, "In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age. " In effect this says natural climate change matters more than man-made climate change. It also suggests Science can provide a "global thermostat" regardless of Nature's prerogatives. --- 2. 2 --- Solution: Dimming the sun? You provided a Guardian article about solar dimming. But for $10B per year, The Guardian expects a "complement to--not a substitute for--aggressive emissions reductions action" that "destabilizes things" so that scientists can't predict its benefit (or harm). --- 2. 3 --- Solution: Solar alone? I provided a source that says solar CANNOT scale to replace oil. Your response: yes it can (but no source). --- 3. 1 --- Some "poison" CO2 is not a poison, Neither is Methane. Unless you also think that sugar, Salt, And water are poisons. After all, Too much of any of these will kill a person. --- 3. 2 --- "Lay down and die" Your description of the CATASTROPHE did not include mass deaths. You mentioned human costs, But nothing concrete. I think a source for how many people will die globally under the status quo would greatly improve this debate. Do you have one? --- 3. 3 --- Moon Landing Your comparison supports my position not yours! We agree that this should have been a low priority. Between Kennedy's challenge and the moon landing, The USA spent $47B on NASA (1). That's $325B in constant 2015 dollars. The USA has already spent about $177B (2015 dollars) on fixing the climate (2). I'm willing to fund another $150B MAX on it. --- 3. 4 --- Precise numbers How can climate science forecast increases in hurricanes (or whatever) with CONFIDENCE, But not forecast decreases in hurricanes AT ALL? Are they not equivalent calculations? I did not ask for "a 100% solution. " I asked for evidence of results from $2T. Even small results would help your side show the size of the problem. Why is there no answer? (1) theguardian. Com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel (2) climatedollars. Org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

CON

  • CON

    It does not solve the problem

    Those affected by climate change should get compensation

    It does not solve the problem

  • CON

    Developing countries would use the money to become more...

    Those affected by climate change should get compensation

    Developing countries would use the money to become more industrious themselves.

  • CON

    it cannot be measured in fiscal ways

    Those affected by climate change should get compensation

    it cannot be measured in fiscal ways

  • CON

    Either we act or we don't act, and then either GW happens...

    Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.

    Action needn't cost a fortune, using market forces and effective regulation carbon emissions can be reduced at minimal cost. Anyway the people that are causing it can easily afford it... Out of the four possible eventualities, acting now is the best. Either we act or we don't act, and then either GW happens or not. If we do not act, and global warming happens, the enitre world economy would completely collapse, and these third world communities would be wiped out in an instant.

  • CON

    This is a much deeper topic and, i'll say again, this is...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    This is a much deeper topic and, i'll say again, this is a scientific debates. Just because politicians have used it to pick sides, doesn't mean it has to be political. I don't feel you've sufficiently countered my points and I'll go a step further. I've found a nice article showing that it's a much deeper issue than what you have alluded to and there is plenty of evidence that, while we are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, you're idea of threat does not have enough to stand on. http://www.americantraditions.org...(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm

  • CON

    However, where I disagree is the threat. ... However, we...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I will agree that humans have had a measurable (not stating how measurable) effect on the Earth. However, where I disagree is the threat. The Earth has been SIGNFICANTLY hotter in the past (and more dynamic for that matter), see http://www.wrsc.org.... Do I think being "more green" is helpful, sure. However, we are not destroying the planet to the degree the stated "documentary" says. Rather than an inconvenient truth, an inaccurate partial-truth. Let's look at what's happened in the 10 years since this mess was released. http://dailycaller.com... sums it up VERY well.

  • CON

    Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    If you wanted a serious debate then you would not have ignored my entire argument. So I guess since you are not paying attention to my arguments I will just have to disprove yours instead of adding to my own. You firstly say that, "The temperature has increased .87 Celsius." This is true, but you forgot to mention that the warming period that caused this rise started in the 1700's before the industrial revolution. In addition to this, the world has been naturally warming for the last 20,000 years. You ignored large amounts of scientific data in your argument and made a claim that I agree with. The world IS WARMING!!! It just is not caused by man. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... According to your second argument, Co2 is at 400 ppm. This is true, but there has been no substantial warming for the last 20 years which is proof of how temperature and Co2 act independently. In addition to this, 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during the last 20 year period. This in itself disproves your claim. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In addition to this, Co2 has been at much higher levels in the past. To restate what I said above, "Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000 ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time." There may be a clear and strong positive correlation between Co2 and temperature but this correlation has been weak compared to that of sun spots. For the majority of the 1900's sun spots correlated MORE STRONGLY to temperature then Co2 did. This means that sun spots had a bigger impact then Co2 on the temperature. Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the early 2000s but that is irrelevant because for the majority of the 1900's, when tons and tons of Co2 were released, the temperature was affected more by sun spots then it was by Co2. Another thing to point out, when sun spot numbers started to drop is when the flat line in temperature began. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://geoffair.net... In actual statistics, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007) http://i0.wp.com... http://inspirehep.net... https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In conclusion, not only have you ignored the majority of my first argument, you state claims that I am not even trying to disprove. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to debate or don't know how to debate my claims. In addition to this, you gave almost no evidence to support your claims, only sources of where you got the information. If you want to have a real debate, maybe reading my arguments would help. Your welcome