3 sources
Pro vs. con view
93 arguments retrieved in 108.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    According to The Center For Biological Diversity, the...

    Acceleration Of Climate Change

    According to The Center For Biological Diversity, the world’s climate is changing as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, and this causes the world’s temperature to rise. This is likely to reduce the amount of arable land on Earth, and it will cause food prices to increase. Furthermore, climate change is likely to result in rising sea levels. There even are major cities that could be flooded. As the population increases, the production of fossil fuels will increase. This is likely to result in climate change occurring at an increasingly rapid pace.

    • https://debatewise.org/2123-should-we-be-concerned-about-population-growth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 33.52
      climate: 19.94
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)
      change: 13.38
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.23 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
  • PRO

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.

    • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l9ssyl/cmv_the_green_new_deal_distracts_from_climate/
    • score
      BM25 score: 28.37
      climate: 15.27
      conclusion: 5.91 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.65)
      premises: 8.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 9.85
      conclusion: 5.11 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.65)
      premises: 4.35 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
      real: 3.25
      premises: 3.00 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.15)
      sourceText: 0.25 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.36)
  • PRO

    The sun drives the global climate

    Man made climate change is a myth

    The sun drives the global climate

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/1757-man-made-climate-change-is-a-myth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 27.01
      climate: 18.39
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 7.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 8.35
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate...

    The sun drives the global climate

    It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/1757-man-made-climate-change-is-a-myth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.56
      climate: 20.63
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 9.20 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 3.66
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    The Camp for Climate Change is a peaceful group of...

    Protests have drawn attention to climate issues

    The Camp for Climate Change is a peaceful group of protestors setting up tents outside the European Climate Exchange (near Liverpool Street Satation). It has recieved a lot of coverage and shows the great public support for Climate Change action. This is the first time climate has been officially on the agenda for an international summit such as this and it is good that this is being highlighted.

  • PRO

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. ... Should...

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
    • score
      BM25 score: 23.17
      climate: 10.47
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 8.35
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.14)
      real: 4.35
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.79)
  • PRO

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway

  • PRO

    The significant bulk of scientific research says it is...

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening

CON

  • CON

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.98
      climate: 19.26
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.83 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 13.39
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.21 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

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

    Climate Change is the end of the world

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

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.98
      climate: 19.26
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.83 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 13.39
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 4.21 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.14)
  • CON

    While there is little doubt about the reality of climate...

    Acceleration Of Climate Change

    While there is little doubt about the reality of climate change, it is unknown how mankind will be able to adapt to it. New technology may create arable land in areas that otherwise couldn’t be farmed. Furthermore, it is possible that relocating people from areas that are flooded will become easier due to improvements in technology.

    • https://debatewise.org/2123-should-we-be-concerned-about-population-growth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 31.60
      climate: 18.44
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.09 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)
      change: 12.96
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
  • CON

    I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's...

    CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

    Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.

    • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l77o8v/cmv_there_is_no_legal_way_to_bring_real_change_in/
    • score
      BM25 score: 22.63
      climate: 0.68
      sourceText: 0.68 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.14)
      sum: 6.91 (product 2.32, product 4.20, product 0.39)
      sum: 6.21 (product 2.09, product 3.77, product 0.35)
      change: 11.54
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.20 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
      real: 10.40
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.77 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.44)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)
  • CON

    Although there has been some attention focussed on the...

    Protests have drawn attention to climate issues

    Although there has been some attention focussed on the Camp for Climate Change the main press 'attraction' has been the protests outside bank and the antipathy towards city workers and capitalism in general. As usual the sensationalist press wants to cover violence rather than peaceful protest and with scuffles breaking out at Bank the climate protestors efforts have been overshadowed.

  • CON

    It has become a new and fashionable way of attacking...

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    NO. It has become a new and fashionable way of attacking capitalism

  • CON

    Humankind has the ability to deal with it later

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    Humankind has the ability to deal with it later

  • CON

    So much evidence

    The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

    So much evidence

  • CON

    You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just...

    CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

    First off, I sort of reject a lot of your premises involving bipartisanship. I don't think there are enough republicans serious about trying to be bipartisan to actually pass any meaningful climate change bills with 60+ votes. If dems try to be bipartisan, it's primarily a stalling tactic by the GOP to ensure that nothing gets done for long enough that they can run on the "look how ineffective the democrats are". Related to this, bipartisanship is *not* the only way to get things done. They can also try to get rid of the filibuster. You can debate whether that's actually a good idea, just like we can debate whether bipartisanship is actually a good idea, but it is a path forward. That said, even to get 50 votes, you still need moderate Democrats like Manchin who are almost certainly unlikely to be interested in the green new deal. So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which So in a sort of roundabout way, I agree with you that it's not realistic right now, although I disagree with your exact reasoning. But I do disagree that that necessarily makes it a "distraction". On this point, I think you have to disentangle two things. There's the green new deal itself, which is notably not an actual bill that's currently under consideration to become law, and is more a set of goals. What can actually pass should be a practical consideration when actually legislating, but it's silly to try and argue that people shouldn't even clearly state *what they actually want*. Anything that actually passes will surely be a compromise, bit you don't help your cause in a negotiation by dumbing down your opening offer to try and avoid having to negotiate entirely. You start with what you want and work from there. Now, you could make a strong case that there are democratic figures that treat the green new deal as an all-or-nothing no compromise purity test and use it to attack other Democrats in ways that are pretty unproductive. But that's a critique of those Democrats, not the green new deal itself, which is a pretty accurate platform of what a lot of people on the left genuinely want.

  • CON

    The beneficial effects are slight, and confined to the...

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    The beneficial effects are slight, and confined to the predominantly wealthy cooler developed countries. By contrast, any rise in temperatures will lead to devestating damage to hot countries around the equator which are almost all relatively poor developing countries. Not only do the harms massively outweigh any benefits, the harms hurt those worst off, the benefits those who are already the wealthiest and safest countries on the planet.