Topic space view
830 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • CON

    Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will...

    Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

    Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Reserved-for-FollowerofChrist-Climate-change-is-real-and-a-massive-threat-to-humanity./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.61
      climate: 16.48
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.59 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 10.63
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.50 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.74)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
      real: 5.50
      conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)
  • CON

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue. http://tinyurl.com... Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense. Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased. And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says. Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.59
      climate: 16.35
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)
      change: 9.63
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
      real: 6.61
      conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.76)
  • CON

    Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    "There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority. 'The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' [1]" - Stupidape As I had stated in my Round 3 argument, those consensuses are unreliable as they focus on a small amount of climate scientists and not all of the climate scientists as it is claimed. So you can't say 97% of climate scientists agree because 97% of people in a consensus believe in anthropogenic climate change. "The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle. 'The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.' [13]"- Stupidape The lag isn't a misunderstanding; it's evident. If you look at the graph, you can clearly see the lag of CO2 behind temperature [1]. And there have been times where CO2 and temperature went in opposite directions, which contradicts the theory of CO2 affecting temperature. "'Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.' [14]" - Stupidape If you look at the emails in full context, you can see that the scientists manipulated data to prove their research, and knew that global warming wasn't man made [2]. "The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."- Stupidape Actually, according to the website you sourced, National Review has a high rating of factual reporting [3] . "Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news." And it's also hippocritical of you to call me out on bias sources, as your arguments are chock FULL of them. Greenpeace, one of your sources, was categgorized under "Conspiracy-Psudoscience", which is for sources that "publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media." [4], noting on Greenpeace that it is a "Left wing environmental activist group. Strays from science on a few issues, otherwise not too bad." Next is Thinkprogress, which has a large liberal bias. Here's what the media fact checking website said about them: "ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Has a left wing bias in story selection and has failed some fact checks including these from Snopes."[5]. Here you are critisizing me for using a source with a right wing bias, yet you're using a source that actually FAILED factchecks. And finally, there's skeptical science. A website started by and managed by scientist John Cook, famous for, as I pointed out, manipulated information to push his political agenda. "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."[6]. As for my argument about Mars, we know enough to say that it isn't the CO2 levels. So with that in mind, and the fact that it is the closest planet to Earth, it throws the argument of man made climate change into question, for if CO2 doesn't raise Mars' temperature, then it can't raise Earth's. Nice debating you. Sources [1]- http://joannenova.com.au... [2]- http://pastebin.com... [3]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [4]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [5]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [6]-https://wattsupwiththat.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.48
      climate: 19.37
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.93 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 12.84
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)
  • PRO

    The peer review system is not fair, Democratic,...

    Climate change is a fraud

    Quote - You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. Reply - The term 'greenhouse gas' is misleading. The Earth doesn't act like a greenhouse but is more like a thermostat. Thus, The whole climate disaster scenario is based on many false assumptions. Quote - The claim that every climate scientist is corrupt is so sweeping as to be completely unfounded. There are thousands of climate scientists all over the world; you can't expect every one of them to be bankrolled by special interests or be lying about their science to the public. You might, However, Expect a small minority to be corrupt, Which is what we see in the few who claim anthropogenic climate change is not happening, Who are often funded by fossil fuels or not scientists qualified in the fields they are discussing. Some things you need to know about the science world. 1. The science profession is a very frivolous profession and it is one that the community doesn't need most of the time. The science community has to find ways to make themselves more important and necessary to the community. Thus, They make up artificial disasters from which they can save us poor fools. By creating artificial disasters, Like climate change and Corona Virus attacks, The science community can increase it's social standing and importance. 2. The science community is a kind of mafia organisation which uses bribery, Extortion, Fraud, Blackmail, And deception as it's main tools of trade. 3. The science community is not accountable to anybody because they are a kind of dictatorship which took control of all the global leaders a long time ago and have maintained control ever since. 4. The peer review system is not fair, Democratic, Responsible, Careful and has no sense of morality. The peer review system has been secretly tested many times and it has been found that 90 % of errors are never found. Thus, The peer review system is just a corrupt and bureaucratic waste of time and money. Quote - My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Reply - You have just repeated the same statement as last time. You can't just say that "this is not the case". You must prove that it is not the case using logic and examples. Note - To win this point you must prove that nuclear explosions have caused the climate to change. If you don't have any evidence of this, Then you shouldn't have stated it. Quote - Given that over a million people have died of the corona virus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. Reply - It is only assumed that a million people have died due to the Corona Virus. I haven't seen any evidence to prove that this is the case. If you study the number of deaths from disease in general, You will find that no more people have died from disease this year than what have died from disease last year. Thus, It is just a numbers game and a game of changing disease names to suit the hidden agendas. Note - Have you once heard on the media anything about mortality rates this year verses mortality rates last year? Answer - No you haven't because they don't want you to know that nothing has changed in relation to mortality rates. Note - Decreasing mortality rates is the only thing that can tell you if there is a pandemic or isn't there a pandemic. Quote - The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. Reply - In order to determine if humans are to blame for climate change we have to imagine a world without a sun first. This is just a typical logic exercise and method of determining the cause of something. You take away the possible causative agents one by one and see what happens. Obviously, Humans would not be able to add one or two degrees to the Earth's temperature in this case. Thus, We can safely eliminate humans as being the cause of global warming. Quote - Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. Reply - I can see that you have a sever case of confirmation bias. Sorry, Water vapour cools the Earth, It doesn't warm it. Just image yourself on a blisteringly hot summers day and some big dark clouds come over. Does the temperature (a) Get hotter when the clouds are overhead or (b) Does it get cooler when the big dark clouds come overhead?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.48
      climate: 18.59
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.17 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.50)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 12.28
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.11 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
      real: 1.61
      premises: 1.34 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.51)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.50)
  • PRO

    There is nobody more qualified then this group of people....

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    Round two arguments Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is the main driver. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. IV. Other supporting evidence V. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Claim: A scientific consensus exists for anthropogenic climate change existence. Warrant: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." [0] Impact: A scientific consensus is an agreement upon experts in the field. Think of one hundred heart surgeons agreeing upon a heart surgery technique. Heart surgeons would have more credibility than brain surgeons, dentists, and dermatologist. Even though all four are doctors, only the heart surgeons are most qualified on the subject of heart surgery. The same is true for climate scientists. A geologist, a physicist, and a biologist are all scientists. Yet, only climate scientists are the top notch for qualifications. These are the experts of experts in the field of climate science. There is nobody more qualified then this group of people. The fact that they came to a consensus based upon multiple lines of empirical evidence, used social calibration to determine what qualified as evidence, and social diversity, from many different parts of the world gives an enormous impact. The reason why social diversity is important is to avoid groupthink which can taint the consensus. "What Is Groupthink? Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus. " [1] Here is the peer reviewed sources that confirm the scientific consensus. "J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.” W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." [0] II. Co2 is the main driver. Claim: Co2 matter because the gas absorbs infrared radiation. Warrant:"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating." [2] Impact: Co2 absorbing infrared radiation plays a crucial part in the greenhouse gas rising of Earth's temperature. Claim: Co2 makes up 81% of the greenhouse gases. Warrant: [3] Pie graph should display here. Impact: This shows that Co2 is the main driver of climate change. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. Claim: We know the Co2 is from humans due to human finger prints. Warrant: [4] Impact: These show that the Co2 is human caused as opposed to natural. IV. Other supporting evidence There is other supporting evidence, the over 400 ppm of Co2, sea level rise, global temperature rise which is now at 1.7 degree Fahrenheit, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, and many more. These all reinforce that anthropogenic climate change is happening. [5] V. Sources 0. http://climate.nasa.gov... 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. https://scied.ucar.edu... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.45
      climate: 19.50
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 8.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 12.82
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4%...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    What a disappointing debate. The instigator did not provide one thoughtful argument that mankind is causing climate change, only a source that sates 97% of government funded scientists want more funding to study the issue of CO2 causing climate change. Since, scientists just don't know what the cause it requires more study. Yet, alarmist activists want every human on the planet to reduce their living standards based on possible impacts. While, the respondent to this debate provided a simple common sense discussion about the small amounts of CO2 mankind produces compared with nature. Man's less than 4% annual contributions to CO2 emissions would be considered a measurement error in a science lab. If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4% difference between results it would be considered a success. Yet, alarmists are using this tiny amount as the basis of their argument. In any other context this would be laughed at. Most people that live in cities look around only noticing the tiny part of the planet that men have modified for their comfort. With mankind's continued fight against nature, it would take back the urban areas very quickly. Nature is a robust and complex system. The planet Earth has taken a beating in the past and will in the future. Life will survive, as well as mankind. For a person to state that nature can not handle a 4% increase of CO2 in a complex system is simply naive. The instigators responses were at best weak. The accusation of a cherry picking fallacy is fallacious at best. The total CO2 emissions were included to demonstrate the extremely small amount that mankind was responsible for. Thus, bring in nature's capacity to absorb large amounts of CO2 was not necessary. A 4% error in nature's absorbing capacity and all of mankind's CO2 has be removed from the system. Looking at the IPCC's numbers nature absorbs more than it produces. Using the alarmist's logic, if mankind was not producing excess CO2 the earth would be on the verge of global cooling. There is very few alarmist out there that would be calling for mankind to increase CO2 emissions in this case. Anthropogenic climate change on Venus is a tough sell but I'm sure welfare scientists have requests for funding in at this time. Mankind does not understand planet Earth, and have a geographic advantage. Any attempt at understand Venus' climate is a pretense of knowledge. It could be there is a lot of CO2 due to heat, instead of the opposite. In total, the con side of this debate has provided the best arguments against anthropogenic climate change, by simply pointing out the small amounts of CO2 emitted by mankind

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.41
      climate: 19.13
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.72 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 13.06
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.89 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.51)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
  • PRO

    Debate format- R1: acceptance(NO ARGUMENTS) R2: Opening...

    Climate change

    Climate Change-The global rise in temperatures, As well as other effects, Emerging from the manmade release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Debate format- R1: acceptance(NO ARGUMENTS) R2: Opening statements(you cannot respond, You may only present your points. ) R3: Do whatever you want R4: Do whatever you want R5: Closing statements(NO NEW ARGUMENTS) I hope this debate invite reaches you quickly. Back in 2017 I actually debated you on this very subject, And even though I won, I felt like I left something on the table, As I was an inexperienced debater. I look forward to engaging you in NOBLE INTELLECTUAL FISTICUFFS OF LOGIC.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/10/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.38
      climate: 18.59
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)
      change: 13.49
      conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)
  • PRO

    The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French...

    Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

    This is extremely confusing. You start off by saying that Maurice Strong is a criminal. He's not. Then you go on to rant about how climate change is an immoral commie agenda. I assume this is who you re talking about when you say he "created" climate change. He didn't. The greenhouse effect was discovered by a French physicist named Joseph Fourier in 1824. the first correlation beteen CO2 and temperature was discovered in 1900, by a Swede named Knut Angstrom. Mauna Loa began working in 1958. The first concern about climate change came in 1965, when the President was warned about climate change by a council of scientists. So tell me, how did Maurice start ALL of climate change? 2. This is a blog, and the IPCC is much more credible source. 3. (a) That's not how climate or averages work. They average thousands of sites across the globe, and they all indicate warming. (b) Oceans are indeed rising. YOu have no clue how continental drift works either, do you? COntinental drift doesn't happen at that rate, "dummy". Here's a source: https://www.climate.gov... 4. It is not trivial, but it is appeal to authority fallacy. 5. Please read the sources I've provided. They'll help. Hockey stick was not broken, and many replications have shown the same result. https://www.skepticalscience.com... there it is My opponent has repeatedly used incorrect information, fallacious reasoning, faulty logic, ad hominems, and has his whole argument structured around proof by repetition. Therefore, i strongly urge a vote to the pro(affirmative).

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Reserved-for-FollowerofChrist-Climate-change-is-real-and-a-massive-threat-to-humanity./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.38
      climate: 16.37
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.47 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 10.51
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
      real: 5.50
      conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)
  • PRO

    Now for my reliance on NASA for my source, well I used it...

    Climate Change is man caused

    Thank you. I do not think it is only human-caused that title is put there, because I wouldn't want to put such titles as, "Climate change is sorta man caused". What I am arguing is humans do have a fairly large affect on the rate it is going at. Now for my reliance on NASA for my source, well I used it specifically because it is more well known than than the other sources I found and if you want them then tell if so in your statement and I will happily send you some of them. A scholarly article written by Thomas R. Karl (a climatologist that is the director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration"s National Climatic Data Center.) states, "The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition." Now another source I used which granted is from the EPA (but I didn't want to use NASA for my only source) states that the temperature is rose at 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit last century, however it also states small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather. Also 2014 was the hottest year on record according to multiple sources (listed bellow) and the 21st century is officially up to date the hottest century. I wish my opponent luck Sources Karl, T. R. "Modern Global Climate Change." Science 15.1 (2003): 1719-723. Print. "Basics." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.epa.gov...; Hottest Year/century on record sources: "21st Century 'hottest' on Record as Global Warming Continues - UN." UN News Center. UN, 2 Feb. 2015. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.un.org...;. "2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record." Time. Time. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://time.com...;. "2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record." Scientific American Global RSS. Web. 4 Feb. 2015. <http://www.scientificamerican.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-man-caused/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.32
      climate: 19.12
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 7.71 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.61)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 12.98
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    I've looked at all the data, The statement that climate...

    Human caused climate change is total nonsense

    I've looked at all the data, The statement that climate change is caused by man is irrefutable the evidence is all on one side, And i mean real science not psuedoscience

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-total-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 32.28
      climate: 16.62
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.38 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)
      change: 11.29
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)
      real: 4.37
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.54)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.89)