args

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

Round 1: Accept challenge and give 1 paragraph intro. Round 2: Create argument and rebut. Round 3: Add to argument and rebut. Round 4: Rebut, add to argument, and make 1 paragraph closing. I believe in the fact of Round 2: Create argument and rebut. Round 3: Add to argument and rebut. Round 4: Rebut, add to argument, and make 1 paragraph closing. I believe in the fact of climate change, I believe in climate change due to 99.5% (the actual stat according to many many sources, do a basic Google search) of all scientists believing in it. I believe in man made climate change due to 97% of scientists believing in it (according to many sources including the US Gov and UN). I believe in climate change being a problem as the scientific consensus does too, and I believe we can take action as if we are a major cause of it, we can stop doing what we are doing to cause it.

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

Due to many problems posting arguments for the last debate, Citrakayah and I have decided to restart the debate in order to iron out the structural problems of this debate and because the computer deleted my argument. I extend my opponent the best of luck. Full Resolution Climate change is not an imminent danger to the general wellbeing of this planet. I will be arguing for this resolution. BoP is shared. Definitions Climate Change: "...a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years."[1] Imminent: "Liable to happen soon; impending ."[2] Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or loss; risk."[3] Basically, the resolution is that climate change will not significantly damage the earth in the next century or two. Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

climate change is fake

It's real Alright, here's the big question. How do we prove this argument true or false? Let's look at the facts. One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations such as National Geographic and NASA have given provable theories about this topic. Also, there is no corruption involved with a person understanding the fact that the chemicals we burn every day of our lives are killing us. Our planet is not infinite, it's resources will eventually dry up, and the human race will overpopulate the planet without the proper measures. The fact we know and understand this crisis has nothing to do with our morality and our honesty. My opponent in this debate is straying to far into biased waters, and if he's not careful, he'll get swallowed up by the giant shark called FAILURE. Climate Change exists, and it IS killing our planet.

Climate change

I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc.) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc.) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc.). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] http://www.newsweek.com... [5] http://www.geocraft.com...

Nuclear energy undermines renewable solutions to climate change

"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away from renewable energy, the proven climate change solution. Nuclear energy distracts governments from taking the real global action necessary to tackle climate change and meet people’s energy needs."

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

Please stick to only the man-made part of this argument. I am not denying the world is heating or any possible effects of that. I am saying that man does not cause it. Also, quoting a consensus is NOT science. I want to hear your argument, not some random scientists. Science is based off of hard facts and evidence to support claims, not a consensus of random scientists whether they studied climate or not. Here are my reasons: 1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate: Many people I have met say, "Man made global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof." 2.The computer models don"t work The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...... 3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now. 4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time. 5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now: Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com...... More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades. The political side of things: This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject. The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey. Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way: https://www.youtube.com...... The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today. The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...... The final proof: And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real: It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.