Debate.orgClimate change is real.
Climate change is real.
Climate change is real.
Any source
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO The official definition of climate change is: a change in...
Climate change is real.
Greetings and welcome to the debate. In this round, I will present my key reasons for believing that climate change is indeed real, And not a hoax, As certain political leaders have said. But first, We must define climate change. The official definition of climate change is: a change in global or regional climate patterns, In particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. My first reason is that we have seen a huge increase in COS22; levels in the atmosphere, And this can be correlated with human industrial activity. In fact, Atmospheric COS22; levels are directly proportionate to human industrial activity. And, Increasing COS22; levels lead to a predictable rise in temperature. You may say that climates change anyway, And COS22; levels will fluctuate naturally, But it is no coincidence that it starts changing rapidly the moment humans figure out how to mine coal and burn fossil fuels. My second reason is that the Earth's temperature has risen by approximately 1"C since 1969. This might not seem like much, But in comparison to previous climate changes, It is vastly significant. Ocean temperatures have also risen by 0. 7"F, Killing a statistically significant proportion of the Great Barrier Reef. My final reason is that Arctic sea ice is shrinking, And polar bears may see the first iceless summer by 2050. So, We can conclude that climate change is indeed real, And not a hoax. I await my opponent's argument!
-
PRO On reason that I believe that climate change is real is...
Climate change is real.
On reason that I believe that climate change is real is the increase in global temperature and the shrinking of the Arctic ice. This is shown on this website : http://www.nasa.gov....
-
PRO I will be arguing that climate change is real and caused...
Climate change is real and caused by humans
I will be arguing that climate change is real and caused by humans, and is an urgent problem for the world at large. Good luck proving me wrong, since it's been proven right.
-
PRO Bring external mass to the planet 2. ... Php https://www.
Climate Change is a real issue
I propose that Global warming is indeed a real and existential threat to our planet. As you may have heard before there were periods in our planet's timeline called "the ice age" however most of the proof we have was amassed in the last few thousands of years which helps us graph what life was like millions of years ago using geological evidence, Fossils, Ice cores and even trees (which can date back a few thousand years) and other clues to help us understand our planet's past. From this paragraph I lay my claim that atmosphere and the crest of the planet are subjectable to human influence. based statistics and chart data from climate. Gov that Carbon dioxide's ppm has had about a 1/3 increase and the annual green house gas index has had a 45% percent increase since 1990 (relative to 1990) 1. Your video evidence, The video itself states that climate change does exist and is undoubtable to most scientist in that range of field however it does question the perceived threat of global warming the human influence that be causing the problem. We can discuss more about the video in the next round. 2. I do not know what mathematics you speak of however there are three ways i can think of a few ways humans can change the mass of earth 1. Bring external mass to the planet 2. Eject mass from planet 3. Influencing earth in a way to increase or decrease intake/output of energy from our planet though lost energy (entropy) 3. Considering that I have a source that says the ppm of co2 has been at 280 ppm pre industrial revolution I have no idea what to think considering you said that it has a saturation of 80 ppm (currently at around 400 ppm) 4. I don't actually care about this person, However they are rightfully noteworthy for what i presume is a fact? 5. Ok, That paper does put up concern but I will discard it because I don't want to bother with analyzing it due to fact you yourself called it fraud. now for my own claims which I will assert some possible affects of global warming and issues in relation to it 1. Sea level rising; this if it happens is predicted to displace 143 million people not to mention disrupt international trading, Food production, Land animal/plants ecosystem and living space and the planetary absorption/reflection of the sun's rays 2. Ecosystem collapse; as you might have read many animals, And plants alike are sensitive to ecosystem change causing species to die out or become reduced which could potentially allow an invasive species to come in or a chain reaction of species dying out which will decrease the earth's biodiversity and overall planetary sustainability. 3. Carbon and other particles have been rising in ppm for the most part these last few centuries, This could have a impact on the overall health and quality of life the atmosphere could provide to us by exposing us all to an unhealthy amount of particles that might impede our body's ability to function 4. As I said before currently our planet's ecosystem is strained, You might have heard about banana farms being killed off, Or species going extinct, Perhaps the killer wasp stories or the invasive species stories. Ecosystems have long evolved in such a way to even create breeds of the same species just so it thrives and contributes to a healthy ecosystem, When species' die it leaves the local area without its overall stability and vulnerable to intrusion and entropy of the ecosystem. A shoddy comparison is the free market, Where the businesses have specialized in their niche to be the best in that field that is what life has done to thrive in their ecosystems, But if you change variables suddenly some can't change fast enough and will go under. That is what happens in both the free market and in ecosystems. https://www. Climate. Gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www. Earthobservatory. Nasa. Gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5. Php https://www. Ajc. Com/news/world/climate-change-will-internally-displace-143-million-people-2050-scientists-warn/UppkeFSlfJmPr3ay3rAF0I/
-
PRO I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe...
Climate change is real.
I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe in climate change.
-
PRO The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes...
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent throws around a bunch of irrelevant facts to try to disprove highly credible and peer reviewed articles. At this point, responding to my opponent's arguments directly would only give the impression that they were worth responding to. I added a few more peer reviewed articles to back up my points. I use peer reviewed to prove that anthropic climate change is real and a threat. When two sides of the debate conflict on facts, the winner goes to the side who uses the more credible sources. My opponent uses blogs and other sources with notorious reputations. Then, my opponent proceeds to engage in conjecture that these red herrings somehow impact the resolution. At the very least voters, give me the more credible sources points. The below quote, although lengthy explains that man-made climate change isn't something far in the future, its an event that has occurred already and is continuing to occur and claim human lives. I have overwhelmingly met my burden of proof. Thanks for the debate. ""Unusually high temperatures, as well as socioeconomic vulnerability, along with social attenuation of hazards, in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke. In addition to age and gender, combinatorial factors included preexisting disease, medication, urban residence, isolation, poverty, and, probably, air pollution. Although diversely impacted or reported, many parts of Europe suffered human and other losses, such as farming and forestry through drought and fires. Summer 2003 was the hottest in Europe since 1500, very likely due in part to anthropogenic climate change."" [5] Sources 4. http://dx.doi.org... 5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 6. http://science.sciencemag.org... 7. http://iopscience.iop.org...
-
PRO I hope to destroy some of that myth. ... Pope Francis...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0] Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat. 0. http://www.nytimes.com...
-
PRO Hello, I would like a fair and balanced debate about...
Climate change is real.
Hello, I would like a fair and balanced debate about climate change. Please only accept if you plan to follow through and complete the whole debate.
-
PRO I hope to destroy some of that myth. ... Impact,...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0] Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat. The scientific angle, inconvenient truth [1]. Impact, scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth. [1] Sources 0. http://www.nytimes.com... 1. http://www.imdb.com...
CON
-
CON Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are...
Climate change is real.
Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are simulations, including climate change. Bless.
-
CON Clever programming leads you to believe so. In any case,...
Climate change is real.
Clever programming leads you to believe so. In any case, the case of the affirmative has been dropped and the negative is the only one with extensions pulling through this entire time, leading only the negative ballot to be justified in the end - nothing is real, climate change can't be real.
-
CON Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average...
Climate change is real and caused by humans
Since pro didn't clearly define climate change, I assume he means "Global Warming" . I as Con will be arguing that Global Warming is not real. The BoP is on Pro. Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change" Here are my reason as to why Global Warming is not real, 1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3) Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 5) Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher " more than ten times as high. 6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists " in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" " suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Try and prove me otherwise. Source: https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
-
CON There is proof that climate change is all fake news...
Climate Change is a real issue
The climate is not changing. The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organization that has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the climate is changing. This person will most likely have a secret agenda that has nothing to do with climate. I propose that climate change is a fraud and that the people who support it are all frauds and charlatans. The science of human-caused climate change is faulty and full of misconceptions and bad science. There is proof that climate change is all fake news started by Obama & crew. Those people who listen to that scientist are a jew 1. Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
-
CON This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80...
Climate Change is a real issue
I propose that climate change is a fraud and that the people who support it are all frauds and charlatans. The science of human-caused climate change is faulty and full of misconceptions and bad science. There is proof that climate change is all fake news started by Obama & crew. Those people who listen to that scientist are a jew 1. Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
-
CON Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole...
Climate Change is a real issue
I propose that climate change is a fraud and that the people who support it are all frauds and charlatans. The science of human-caused climate change is faulty and full of misconceptions and bad science. 1. Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. 6. Climate Change is the biggest hoax and sham made by Obama and his crew of liberal loving communist democrats. If you allow them to take money from our paychecks into a plan that doesn't a solution because the problem does not exist, You are giving the democrats power to the Chinese for a global communist take over. To submit to the new world order. Stand your ground. Text fraud 88022. Text vote to 88022. Joe Biden will carry out what Obama couldn't finish. Don't let him There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
-
CON Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate...
Climate change is real.
Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate change cannot exist.
-
CON Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. ......
Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.
First my opponent says that I should have asked questions about the structure earlier in the debate but ignores the fact that, in the comment section, I did ask about the order of the debate and explain what I thought it meant. Therefore, I did alert my opponent to my confusion and my opponent either chose to ignore it or did not see it but either way I made my confusion known. Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made climate change you are preventing research into that area and therefore creating a huge bias in the experiments done and articles published. In conclusion, my opponent has not rebutted even one of my claims, instead they focus on the accusations of rule breaking. Due to this absence of rebuttals, my arguments stand and therefore, based on this debate, I have proven how climate change is not much of a threat, and that global warming is not caused by man. While my opponent may of used abstracts from peer reviewed articles (as they love pointing out) I have won the debate. I have given 11 points to why climate change is not due to Co2 and given countless examples of natural disaster frequency staying constant. All of the arguments I have made in this debate go uncontested and therefore prove that climate change is not man made and that the threat is exaggerated. Due to this, all voters are mandated to vote Con under more convincing arguments and conduct. Thank you for reading this debate.
-
CON Well, here we go- 1. ... The Antarctic Ozone Hole is...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Thanks for accepting. By the way, I really like your profile picture. ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pope Francis's is more than welcome to voice his opinion on this topic, but his opinion is just as good as yours and mine. 2. The fact that we're having a debate on whether Climate Change is even real or not raises serious questions about its existence. 4. The Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking.
-
CON First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or...
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Thank you for posting this debate, I hope to be a worthy opponent!!!! Your argument is based on the pope's opinion as well as a scientific documentary My argument will be based on historical evidence as well as current scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Global Climate Change First I'd like to clarify that Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same theory with a different name and I will treat them as such. First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or Warming) Thus the theory of Global Climate Change (warming) is - a change in global climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onward and attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. I'd like to give a more simplified version of the above statement by giving this general statement released by the IPCC on what Climate Change is "Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change." Next, I'd like to refute my opponent's arguments Argument 1) Pope Francis recognizes climate change and he "Knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat" My Response: Pope Francis has no college degree in science (he does have a "titulo" as a chemical technician, which is not a college degree) and either way he is not a climatologist and his opinion does not count as an expert's opinion and his opinion is on par with the opinion of world leaders and celebrities... Essentially, his opinion on climate change is just as important as the opinion of Vladimir Putin's, neither count as an expert, but their opinion's count as a World Leader's opinion. Argument 2) An Inconvenient Truth My Response: I will watch the entirety of this movie so I can refute the movie in my next argument Now I will give my basic arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid During World War II, U.S. oil production increased by 3 billion barrels annually during the war. Both the Allies and the Axis used incredible amounts of oil and the best scientific data available, which is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shows that carbon dioxide levels literally "flat-lined" during the decade between 1940 and 1950 staying at 311.3 PPM and actually going down between 1941 and 1945, (the period that the US was in the war) [1] So, how did burning another 12+ billion barrels of oil not increase CO2???? Because, there is no direct link between oil usage and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Of course CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of oil, but that CO2 has had little to no affect on atmospheric CO2 as seen in my example above. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... According to the UAH and RSS climate research satellites there had been no warming between the late 90's and 2015 in fact 2014, was only .01 degrees hotter than 2005, and 2013 was only .02 degrees warmer than 2005. The conclusion from the analysis of the data is that while there has been a .05 degree warming trend since 2002, according to researchers that is "statistically insignificant" [2] The small upward trend from 1978 to 2015 is .2 degrees Celsius and is once again classifiable as statistically insignificant and is not proof of any man made global warming, in fact the lack of a significant upward trend shows not only that global warming predictions on climate and temperatures have been well off, but that there may not be any man made global warming at all. (excuse the site on the chart, woodfortrees.org is not where I got the chart, the source I used for the chart is the one listed as source 2) 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory NASA satillites discovered that the antarctic sea ice had reached a new record high in 2012 and then again in 2014, in 2014 it set a record for the largest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history [3]. Global Warming theory dictates that the Ice caps would begin to melt at an alarming rate, but if that's the case then how come this has occurred. In fact Al Gore and many Global Warming theorists stated that the ice caps would be completley gone by 2013, when the exact opposite has occurred. The red line in the photo is the largest that the ice had ever been recorded at. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases look at both of the below charts, the first chart is CO2 and temperature data for the last 750 million years, each blue dot represents the temperature and CO2 levels. What you can see is that the dots are everywhere and seemingly when CO2 is raised the dots tend to be higher, but there are several dots (call them outliers if you wish) that even nearing 5000 PPM CO2 are still cooler than the average Earth Temperature. On top of this, why are there dots near the 1000 PPM range that are higher up on the anomaly range than the dots at 7000 PPM. The Second chart shows CO2 and Temperature from 1999 to 2014, what can be seen is a very, very small trend line which is again considered Statistically Insignificant, showing no proof of a global climate change. (specifically the trend is .00668, which is essentially 0 to statisticians) [4] s://s17.postimg.io...; alt="" /> s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> Both Charts show a lack of evidence with CO2 and Temperature, In fact, it could be said that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature Change. However IPCC's definition of Global Climate Change requires such a correlation and if such a correlation is not apparent than Climate Change theory is flawed and thus Global Climate Change would not exist. So, based on all 4 of my points I am in firm negation of the topic in which we are debating. Thank you for reading this argument and looking at my charts!!! I hope you understood it, and I can't to see your next round. I'd like to remind my opponent of his BoP, which because of him being the pro he must prove specifically that Man Made Climate change is real and a threat he must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, my BoP is not to disprove Climate Change but rather to cast a shadow of a doubt, similar to a court case the judges must not have ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he has won or they must give me the victory. Sources: [1]http://data.giss.nasa.gov... [2]http://dailycaller.com... [3]http://www.nasa.gov... [4]https://wattsupwiththat.com... In case the charts/pics dont show up... Here are each of the chars on an external link: 1: http://dailycaller.com... 2: http://www.nasa.gov... 3:https://s17.postimg.io... 4: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
