args

CON

• CON

  Wait..... so your pro for climate change, or yo agree...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  Wait..... so your pro for climate change, or yo agree with it and your now against it? The title says "Climate Change," and your for it and now you changed your mind.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 29.87

    climate: 21.49

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

    premises: 8.68 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 15.06

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 4.67 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Attack...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change

  I will argue that climate change is not man made. The pro will argue that climate change is man made. Structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Attack Opponent's Arguments R4: Defend R2 Arguments NO NEW ARGUEMENTS Must use sources in arguments. Also, Stupidape please don't accept this challenge. I want more people to be involved in this debate, not just you.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 29.06

    climate: 20.96

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

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.77

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  Climate change clearly does not exist, here are reasons...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Exists

  Climate change clearly does not exist, here are reasons why: (1) Exhaling Carbon Dioxide is no clear threat to our climate, we just breathe it out, our cars do it too (2) It is a conspiracy (3) There are no sources to back your statement up Here are my sources on how "Climate Change" doesn't exist: (1) http://www.globalclimatescam.com... (2) http://www.newsmax.com... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org... These 3 sources tell you that climate change is fake, first one tells you the top 10 reasons why climate change does not exist, the second, facts about this "global warming" hoax; And finally, The third source tells you the entire conspiracy that "Climate Change exists"

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Exists/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.88

    climate: 20.69

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.94)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.05

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.87 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.89)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8] As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case. "Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9] The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic. In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. Sources: [8] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [10] https://www.epa.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.43

    climate: 20.49

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.05 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.89)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 13.80

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  Again, we don't know, but I have come to argue it is not....

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is man caused

  Climate change is quite complicated and requires more than two minds. Climate change is happening, but is it man caused? Again, we don't know, but I have come to argue it is not. There was never enough research done on the natural causes of climate change, so we just naturally assumed it was man caused. You see where I'm going with this. It is conditional on evidence. I thank you for the debate.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-man-caused/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.27

    climate: 20.22

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 13.91

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.74 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change

  A study by the biology cabinet shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature [1]. "On this assessment, the evidence points to a current natural climate change which happens sequentially in two main climate periods, icehouse and warmhouse." Another study was found on the Vostok ice cores, which show temperature records going back over 400,000 years. Data from the ice cores reveal an 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature [2], meaning CO2 changes came AFTER temperature. If climate change was man made, then temperature would lag behind CO2, but the opposite happens, which proves that CO2 cannot influence temperature. The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to about the same level whenever it rose significantly, which shows that it is a constant cycle and not affected by human activities. The same can be said about the CO2 levels. Manipulation and False Activism Pollutes the Climate Change Debate One of the biggest science scandals, Climategate, occurred in 2009. Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia Climatic Research Unit, and statements from the emails contradict anthropogenic climate change. [3]. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate" [4]. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." [4]. The government as well as a variety of foundations donate billions of dollars to scientists to prove global warming is man made and to groups that put a megaphone to the global warming agenda. [5] "the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for green energy."- Forbes A report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works shows a "billionaire's club" that directs funding to leftist environmental activism groups and policy makers, while also getting grants from the government. [5] "Under President Obama, EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund " two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials " have collected more than $1 million in funding each." Finally, Former Vice President Al Gore made a famous movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" about the theory of man made global warming and its effects. However, there were eleven significant errors in his movie, coming from Gore trying to exaggerate in attempt to scare people into believing his political agenda. So what could be the cause of the global warming? I believe the sun is the one responsible, as correlations between the sun and the Earth's temperature have been found when studying temperature and sun levels from 1880-1980 [11], and 1980-2006 [12]. This could also explain why other planets in our solar system are warming, as all the planets rely on the Sun. But at the end of the day, the warming is NOT caused by CO2. Sources [1]-http://www.biocab.org...... [2]-http://joannenova.com.au...... and also http://cdiac.ornl.gov...... [3]-https://wikileaks.org...... [4]-http://pastebin.com...... (Screen shots of emails)* and also http://www.justfacts.com...... [5]-http://www.nationalreview.com...... http://www.forbes.com...... http://joannenova.com.au... https://www.epw.senate.gov... [6]-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...... [7]-http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...... [8]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com...... [9]-http://climate.nasa.gov...... [10]-http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com...... [11]-http://www.tmgnow.com...... [12]-http://www.biocab.org...... *The emails were only available from downloading, and taking screen shots of the emails are the easiest way to show the emails.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.26

    climate: 20.69

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

    premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.24

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 3.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.49)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  Acknowledgement of opposing evidence I shall first bring up some evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change. One may wonder why I would do this when I am arguing against anthropogenic climate change, but it’s really simple: I do this in order to provide the opposing side some representation and then I will present my side to refute that side’s argument. That is the most logical way of debating, and if you ignore evidence when it is available to you, that is a cherry-picking fallacy. The main evidence of anthropogenic climate change, is the increased levels of CO2 emissions within the past couple of centuries. It is believed that irreversible effects are occurring now and into the future due to increased CO2 emissions, and that this CO2 emission increase is due to primarily human activity [1]. In fact, in this study, it is shown that if humans were to cut all CO2 emissions the CO2 in the atmosphere would linger still and still cause more warming even if it were all put to an end. [1] There are of course plenty of other studies that show this as well. Refuting the scientific consensus There is often stated that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real[2]. However, it is a fallacy to trust the words of authorities on the matter without considering the evidence. In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it. The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. Reiterating previous debate points In a previous debate with the same user, it was established that 3.225% of all CO2 emissions are caused from humans by unnatural causes. [4] In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. Problems with CO2 emissions claims Since there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidence” that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth. In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. If it was as simple as CO2 rises, and therefore temperature rises due to it, then the reverse should not be happening where temperature rises and then CO2 rises. It was also found that CO2 forcing effects on seasonal temperature to be inconclusive, particularly since CO2 emissions cause warming at first, but the warming causes more evaporation of water and thus more clouds and humidity, which lead to a cooling effect, the net effect is not much change in the overall temperature [5] Next, another study performed by G. V Chilingar et al found that “Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.” In another comprehensive study on global temperature rises by Patrick J. Michaels et al, it was concluded from “observations of atmospheric CO2 buildup and global CO2 emissions... that lead to exponential warming... is not based upon the reality of recent decades.” Many of the models scientists have come out with to show that CO2 rises cause exponential warming, are not reflective of what has actually been happening in the world, and the warming in the world is much more linear. Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles that show problems with anthropogenic climate change; there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming, to problems with climate models, to what should have been expected to result from anthropogenic climate change not actually happening. [7] Due to all of these issues listed above in this category and the previous 3, it is difficult to believe the climate scientists who claim anthropogenic climate change is a reality, when, as far as I’m aware, they have not addressed the above issues outlined. Inconclusive results and the default position Because as mentioned before, that majority of the studies done into anthropogenic climate change resulted in inconclusive or neutral results, the default position should be that anthropogenic climate change does not exist. Just as believing a god doesn’t exist is the default position when there is not conclusive evidence for or against a god, or majority of the evidence is inconclusive or neutral, so would then the position on anthropogenic climate change have the default position of not believing in it. Sources: [1] http://www.pnas.org... [2] http://climate.nasa.gov... [3] http://iopscience.iop.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... [6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [7] https://skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.20

    climate: 20.29

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.85 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.85)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 13.77

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.58 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.78)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is a fraud

  I'll accept this challenge. First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic climate change or all climate change? If it is the former, As I suspect it is, I won't waste time explaining all the evidence that the globe is, In fact, Warming at an unprecedented rate and instead go straight into attribution. If, However, You don't think the globe is really warming at an unprecedented rate, I'm happy to go into the evidence for it. Moreover, "fraud" implies more than just the majority of scientists being wrong (i. E. Misinterpreting the evidence) but also that they are intentionally lying. This is a big claim given the number of scientists who support the concept of anthropogenic climate change and one that incurs its own burden of proof. See you some time in the next 72 hours.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.19

    climate: 20.17

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.83)

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

    change: 13.88

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.71 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  There is proof that climate change is all fake news...

  Show full argument

  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.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.06

    climate: 20.60

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.20 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 13.32

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.15 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.61)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " ......

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] -stupidape However, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive. It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real. "False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidape Well, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7. .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] -Stupidape There are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming. "Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]" -Stupidape However, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13] "Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change." -stupidape There are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt. "As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models." -stupidape This doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model? Sources: [11] http://www.nationalreview.com...; [12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf [13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 28.05

    climate: 20.28

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.84 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 13.63

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.45 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.73)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)