Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    History shows that energy demand keeps growing even in...

    Climate change is best solved by energy efficiency, not CCS

    Vaclav Smil, PhD, Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, stated the following in his May 2006 statement "Energy at the Crossroads," during the Conference on Scientific Challenges for Energy Research in Paris, available at www.home.cc.umanitoba.ca: "The obvious question is why it should be even attempted given the fact that a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions could be achieved by several more rational, mature and readily available adjustments... [T]technical fixes cannot provide a lasting resolution. History shows that energy demand keeps growing even in the most energy-saturated affluent societies: encouraging worldwide diffusion of this trend (new China, and then India, aspiring to replicate the US) and trying to fill the supply through scientific and engineering ingenuity is not a formula compatible with maintaining a viable biosphere. Obviously, poor countries need more energy; but the rich ones should, sooner, rather than later, think about engineering rational reductions in energy use. All economies are just subsystems of the biosphere and the first law of ecology is that no trees grow to heaven. If we are not going to engineer thoughtful, gradual reductions, we run a considerable risk that the biosphere may do the scaling-down for us in a much less desirable (if not catastrophic) manner."

  • PRO

    Global warming is already occurring and there are no...

    Irreversible climate change makes geoengineering unavoidable.

    There is a good chance that global warming is irreversible. Global warming is already occurring and there are no plans to reduce greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise, despite reductions in new emissions. Geoengineering, therefore, is the likely last resort.

  • PRO

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

    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.

  • PRO

    Instead of having your immune system breaking down the...

    Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.

    Instead of having your immune system breaking down the boogers in your nose, Which only costs extra energy for your body which in turn has to be replenished by you eating extra food just because, You could just aswell pick your boogers and recycle them back into nature and in doing so save on our environment by reducing the need for extra food to grow which at the end of the day only takes it's toll on our environment on account of the extra fossile fuel needed to harvest, Process and distribute said food to our grocery stores.

  • PRO

    That's as maybe, But still the environment takes a toll...

    Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.

    That's as maybe, But still the environment takes a toll if you abstain from engaging in the "noble art of cleansing your nasal cavities from unwanted debris of sort" as the British Academy of Boogerpickering so eloquently would have put it.

  • PRO

    As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing...

    The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

    I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources. As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification. Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example. " It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11] Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate. Sources 10. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

  • PRO

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

    "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 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.

  • PRO

    Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance what about Cost of War in Iraq or in Afghanistan, how many people died? how it affects on our enviroment, climate? Thus, from now we have to take into account that If We Spend Money to Control our Climate,we'll live longer and sickness free. Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 $1,378,096,715,743 (not constant) and even Al Gore says that if government spent the money for climate conditions, not for war, the earth would be on the well way to solve this challenge. In addition there is a gold words of Mark Luther King: "Injustices anywhere threat justices everywhere" and Al Gore says in our time, increases of global pollution anywhere, is a threat to human future everywhere. It is absolutely true, people have to deal with problems seriously instead of spending money on military force, war and so on, while there is more serious problem. So let's stop pollution, safe our nature and species Source: http://costofwar.com...

  • PRO

    What Role for Geoengineering?" ... But if geoengineering...

    Geoengineering gives time and optimism to climate fight

    Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering is potentially the key to unlock the mitigation puzzle—a way of controlling climate risks during the many decades that it will take to transform the global energy system. Asking nations to spend trillions to avoid damages (mostly many) decades in the future while doing little to address warming’s more immediate effects is a difficult task. But if geoengineering can stave off short- and medium-term harms while giving time for a long-term solution to take effect, the result is a coherent policy proposal that may enjoy broader public support."

  • PRO

    An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have...

    An African voice would change priorities for the better

    An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament.[1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013.[2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South. [1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2011.623842#.UrQ0IeImZI0 [2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304020025.html

CON