The sun drives the global climate
Man made climate change is a myth
The sun drives the global climate
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could...
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Thanks for the debate Idaho_Rebel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has stated that climate change has major environmental, social, political, and economic consequences. The issue at stake in this debate, whether developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the consequences of climate change, is thus quite necessary. Pro Case 1. What are the potential "effects" of climate change? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach 400ppm by 2017, if not earlier, making a rise in average global temperatures inevitable. It has been predicted that urban "heat island" effects (the result of rising temperatures) will result in the death of tens of thousands of people across the world. Other predictions include: high-intensity storms and flooding, causing property and infrastructure damage; droughts threatening food and water supplies; wildfires, desertification, and soil erosion destroying agricultural land, raising food prices, and leading to large-scale migrations; and rising sea levels, devastating low-lying coastal settlements (including many major cities). Source: IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de... 2. Why do "developed countries" have a moral obligation to mitigate these effects? The potential harms caused by climate change should be readily apparent, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there is some sort of obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless of which ethical precept is applied. For example, a utilitarian ethics (greatest good for the greatest number) is just as likely to recommend policies that mitigate the effects of climate change as a Kantian ethics (regarding the rightness of actions themselves). So then, the next question is: "who" carries the burden or moral obligation to curb the effects of climate change? The issue at stake here is one of responsibility: do particular governments have more responsibility than others? A reasonable principle to apply here would be the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle: the idea that everyone bears a responsibility to mitigate the effects of climate change, but those with the ability to pay have a greater burden to do so. We could apply other ethical principles, such as the idea of "intergenerational equity" (the debt to future generations) or "compensatory equity" (the debt to more socioeconomically vulnerable people). The conclusion of these principles suggests developed countries, who by definition are more advanced economically and technologically, have a greater burden to mitigate the effects of climate change than do currently developing countries. Con Case Re: "Contention 1" My opponent's argument, that the "economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries," is flawed for two reasons. First, my opponent completely neglects the possibility of alternative mitigation proposals, some which might even have a positive effect on the economy. For example, the development of drought-resistant crops, storm-resistant housing, climate-resilient infrastructure, and secure food/water supplies could easily produce new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there is no need to focus on CO2 emissions when other options exist. In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could build sea walls, which are not only cheaper but much more likely to protect than an energy tax. Second, my opponent's argument offers no reason to believe environmental legislation would hurt the economy. How would the EPA's national energy tax "kill jobs" and "stop economic growth"? How would it make "tilling a field" and "operating a feedlot" impossible? The only answer my opponent provides to these questions is "foreign competition." This fear is unfounded, however, because the EPA's regulations only apply to global industries (domestic industries would be unaffected since they all operate under the same restrictions). Moreover, since fossil fuels are already becoming more expensive relative to renewable sources, an energy tax would simply accelerate a transition to "green energy" that is already underway, including the retraining of carbon-intensive industries for "green jobs." The U.S. economy as a whole would remain competitive. Re: "Contention 2" The argument that humans are not responsible for climate change is irrelevant: assuming climate change is harmful to the well-being of humans, it would not matter who or what was responsible for the harm. The issue at stake in this debate is who is responsible for cleaning up the mess, not who is responsible for creating the mess. To clarify this point, consider Peter Singer's example of a child drowning in a shallow pond: do we have a moral obligation to rescue the child? Yes, we do. Now, suppose someone pushed the child into the shallow pond; does this fact suddenly absolve you of the moral obligation to rescue the child? No, it doesn't. The burden of mitigating the effects of climate change falls on humanity as a whole, with a greater burden placed on those who can better afford to pay for mitigation proposals. The issue of who is responsible for climate change is thus irrelevant. Re: "Contention 3" My opponent argues that "nations are not moral entities," so therefore the "idea that a country would have a 'moral obligation' is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism." The argument is not only entirely incoherent (how can something be objectively "unethical" on the basis of "Ethical Relativism"?), but its premises are flat-out wrong. The problem is that my opponent confuses descriptive ethics with normative ethics, taking the existence of different moral views (it is true that different individuals, cultures, and countries can have different moral doctrines) to establish the lack of a true morality that "nation-states ought to abide by." Just because a particular individual or nation believes their moral view is the right one does not make it right. A culture might practice slavery or cannibalism, but the fact they believe these practices ethical does not make itself make these practices ethical. If we employ an objective ethical framework, such as a utilitarian or deontological ethics which both make claims of universality and objectivity, then my opponent's argument is clearly misguided. But suppose we grant my opponent his claim of ethical relativism, that does not mean no ethical precept can be established. It simply means that, from our perspective, what is right is determined by what we believe. That does not mean what we believe is not a "standard ethical or moral policy." On the contrary, the whole point of ethical relativism is to establish that our morality is situated in our specific culture, and since our culture is one in which protecting the life and property of our citizens is of ethical importance, mitigating climate change is thus also important. The other point my opponent makes - that individuals, not nations, are moral entities - makes no sense. A country or government has the choice - rational free choice - to make decisions and affect the world, just like an individual. This simple fact makes a country a "moral entity," in the sense that my opponent uses the term. The distinction between individual and country does not hold up, because countries are simply the association of individuals for a specific purpose under a particular name. This allows countries to function in the same way as individuals, making them moral entities.
-
PRO The climate has not changed and if it did it wasn't...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
The climate has not changed and if it did it wasn't caused by human activity. The people who first started the climate change nonsense were all communist dictators and criminals.
-
PRO This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world....
Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.
To consider this resolution and evaluate both possible solutions a few things must be established. Firstly, the main value that both sides are defending is the value of human life. The common goal is saving the most possible humans. The pro side will be arguing that preparation is fundamental and necessary to achieve this while the con should be arguing that reducing the damage to the environment is enough. Before I lay out my arguments I would like to make one clarification: the pro side is not arguing that prevention is the ultimate solution. Instead, we will prove that it should be the immediate and necessary action. These are our reasons: 1. We will suffer the consequences of climate change. (It will rise above 2 C). The vast majority of scientists agree that a rise in the average temperature of the world above 2 degrees Celsius from before industrial levels will be extremely catastrophic to the human population. This is a very alarming fact because we have already risen 1 degree above these industrial levels, and from the current course we have set our industries on, it is virtually impossible to prevent going above 2 C. This means we WILL deal with the catastrophic damage of climate change! Now the question is what is the best solution to deal with these consequences such as extreme droughts, flooding, harsh storms, etc.? The solution proposed by the the opposition is completely inviable since switching to green energy or any other measure will not save the lives of the people whose house was washed away by floods or who do not have water to drink. I"m from Brazil and recently we have had the worst drought in 50 years. This made a many people realize the importance of the environment and start taking actions to help it, yet that did not solve the immediate problem. People still did not have water to live! Preparation was necessary and would have remediated the issue. This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world. We need to be prepared to face what is coming, and that is why it should be our main goal. 2. Not all nations will agree on preventing climate change; therefore, nations that do not prepare for its effects will be harmed. One example of this is China, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which has recently stated that it would not maintain its emission control pledges. As a result of that, it is inevitable that significant damage will occur due to climate change. It is nearly impossible to force countries like this to comply with climate change prevention measures; therefore, it would be more beneficial for the other nations to prepare themselves to the effects of climate change rather than spending trillions on trying to prevent it in vain. How can you ask a small country like the Maldives to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions when the sea is rising and destroying their cities? Even if they did agree to take these measures, because other countries like China don"t, the seas will continue to rise. Their main concern currently should be to prepare with the effects of this rise. 3. It would be illogical for a few countries to make the change to green technology because of the magnitude of capital investment in the oil & gas industry. The oil & gas industry is a billion dollar industry. Only in the time period 2009-13 more than 3000 billion dollars were invested in the oil & gas industry. It is needless to point out the huge negative effects the adoption of green technology would mean for the world economy. The results would be catastrophic and there would be no turning back. Thousands of people would lose their jobs and years of technological developments in the industry would be wasted. It would cost 44 trillion dollars to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. The cost of this is unviable. There are no investors willing to spend that much money on green technology. Logically, the costs would be split. However, given the profits the oil industry brings only a crazy person would spend on green technology. This once again demonstrates how prevention is completely impossible in our world and preparation is the best immediate solution. 4. If climate change prevention does not work, then mankind would have wasted all of its resources into something futile, and we would not be able to survive the effects of climate change. In order to change the ways of mankind now, we would have to change so many habits that have been ingrained in our society for decades, since the discovery of oil. How we run our factories, how we trade, change all of the packaging on foods, beauty products, even clothing. It is impossible to impede the productions of these items, since nowadays fossil fuels are present all around us. The keyboard you are typing on is made of plastic for example, the case around your phone is plastic as well. It is incoherent to assume that we can slow this process now, so instead of spending trillions on prevention methods that we are not certain can work (they haven"t until now), we must start thinking about the future, and preparing for the worst that can come. One of the largest mistakes that humanity makes is to begin something and not look deep enough into the future to know how to control that something. This is not a fatalistic view, it is a cautious one. For all these reasons, we are arguing that the preparation to deal with climate change should currently be valued above preventing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arguing that suddenly changing the path we are on will happen and is viable is thinking of a utopian world. It is a completely inviable solution. The main goal of nations should be to prepare, and later, when the mentality concerning climate change starts to shift, prevention can be discussed.
-
PRO When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner...
Climate change
As I have previously stated it is important for the relevance and quality of the debate that only the argument presented are analyzed. Referring to "Co2 theorists" or "deniers" only muddles the debate and brings irrelevant arguments to the debate. I refrained from bringing into the discussion questionable arguments or false evidence produced by "deniers". Had this debate been:"I believe that CO2 advocates are right" or "Deniers are wrong" rather than "GW is human-induced in a significant way" than Con's reference to Co2 advocates statements would have made sense. I have already stated that I will not get dragged into a discussion about advocates and deniers. I am only interested in Con's arguments and he should only be interested in mine. I also salute the fact that Con engaged in tackling the methods for proving false the human induced GW. In my previous speech I pointed out that there was consensus among scientists and that it is more probable that the scientists saying GW is human induced are right. Con had 2 attacks: there is not a large consensus and the consensus is not meaningful. Con first tried to prove that consensus is not meaningful and than that there is actually no consensus. This means that Con abandons his first contention that consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now prove that Con's argument further strengthens my position. First of all, Con only managed to prove marginal misconduct in the IPCC and not in other independent studies while I managed to link all of Con's sources to financers that have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. When evaluating proof, one test is the vested interest in the outcome of the debate [1]. Con conceded in his second speech that GW scientists have no vested interest. Furthermore I have proven a clear and foul initiative form the part of oil industry to deny climate change. Con did not answer to the allegations and proof I provided with this respect. What is more, if there are some scientists that can speak out for themselves and deny the "official position" it is highly improbable that the others will be dominated by the "bureaucrats" at the IPCC. Con did not provide any evidence of the interference of the IPCC interference in the research of GW scientist. Con also attacked all of my sources in block, without mentioning what source is not credible. To Con the Wikipedia articles are more biased than oil financed or oil directed science. This is highly improbable. With respect to the consensus argument Con first conceded that consensus is meaningful and I have proven that it is more probable that the human induced GW theory is not affected by vested interests or by interfering from outside sources. Con decided to address the "significant" term of this topic. I must point out that it was not until the third round that Con addressed the "significant" definition. Until this round Con chose to replace my statements with those of "advocates". When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner by humans I have also provided the means to evaluate if this change is important. Con addressed some of them in the second round and attacked the idea of important enough to take action now. Con argument is nevertheless flawed as he proves that previous action was insufficient not that action must not be taken. Furthermore, Con decides to attack a specific course of action (cap and trade) when there are other means of combating Co2 emissions (i.e. taxes). While in this attempt EU failed to reduce emissions the basic idea should work as it has done in US when trying to curb So2 emissions. So if Con agrees to use this criterion too I should win this debate. We had previously agreed that there is global warming. Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented. In studying the past Co2 records Con pointed out that there can be no correlation between Co2 and global temperatures. I have shown that at the end of the period temperatures decreased and also Co2 levels decreased. The graph and phenomena presented by the article also point out a clear trend in the output and replacement of Co2. This imbalance of absorbed and emitted Co2 and also the positive feedback effect were never accounted for by Cons arguments. Even if at the scale of 600 million years there seems everything is ok, at the scale of 600 000 years Co2 has risen and h In the discussion about Venus and the Moon the basic idea was to observe simpler systems to determine the effects of Co2 in the absence of other factors that may complicate the analysis and hence the debate. I have provided evidence that shows that Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the Sun. Con only attacked the relevance of my source. In this case I will quote sources [2] [3]. Also, I have shown that the Moon which is at basically the same distance from the Sun as Earth is on average much colder. The Moon doesn't have any Periodic Oceanic movement to explain this characteristic. According to the principle tertium non datur the only thing left is the lack of greenhouse effect. Per a contrario on planets with atmosphere (i.e. Earth) this effect can be shown to be significant. We have both agreed to compare Venus to Earth. Nevertheless Con provided proof that states that we must not compare Earth and Venus due to major differences. According to common procedures what has been agreed in a case by the parties is considered truth for the purpose of that case. I must further point out that the evidence presented doesn't explain why we must not compare Venus and Earth. It simply points out that the pressure on Venus is greater than that on Earth but it further analyzes Co2 effects based upon the quantity. The document presented also says that we can only project Co2 evolution by not taking into account the projected evolution of population since this is not science but sociology. This elementary wrong as we must try to improve our models by using all the available data (humans produce co2 – this is no rocket science). The article also concedes that even using it's optimistic projections Co2 will increase temperatures by 1.85 C. When analyzing Venus, Con calculated a + 150 C greenhouse effect. I have shown that the calculation is wrong since Con used the presumption that there is no greenhouse effect on Earth to complete his calculations. The actual temperature that should have been used in the calculations should have been 255 K for Earth with no greenhouse effect. The graph presented is just that: a graph of a logarithmic function. It is for illustrative purposes only. It shows what math already that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x. The derivative shows the speed by which a continuous function "grows". 1/x has large values at the beginning and smaller as x increases. This means that the initial increases in Co2 have a larger effect than subsequent increases of Co2. Me, Con and the article agree on this point. However, neither Con's model, nor the one in the document explain the high temperatures on Venus. If for every 2 degrees we need to double the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere then for +150 C we would need a 2^75 increase (more than the amount on Venus) in Co2 to cause such an increase. This contradicts all the observed data of both Venus and Earth. It is more likely that the initial quantities of Co2 account for most of the effect and that most of the subsequent quantities cause smaller increases. Therefore most of the heating happens at the beginning. This heating is significant. I have used the same inverse method as the one used in the article presented by Con. It is both the Sun and Co2. The motion stands. [1] Preparing for legislative debate; Linda L. Oddo, Thomas B. McClain; P. 30 [2] http://hypertextbook.com... [3] http://www.universetoday.com...
-
PRO They are not imposing air pollution standards for fear of...
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
Thanks to Con for accepting this debate. It was an opportunity to raise some interesting points. Arguments Con forfeited the last round leaving all my arguments unanswered. New arguments cannot be introduced in Con's final round, so he should be content with summarizing. I raised the issue early as to why trillions of dollars should be spent on policies that no one claims will have a significant effect on climate. Con's reply was that we should spend lesser trillions on policies that would have even less of an effect, not even measurable. Also unanswered was the detrimental effect on the US of refusing to develop the $300 trillion in fossil fuel resources when we need the revenue desperately. Con argues that China looks to the US to set an example. Have they improved their human rights record in the light of the US's example? They are not imposing air pollution standards for fear of economic loss, that also despite the US's example of strict pollution controls. It is not remotely plausible that China, or anyone else in the world, is going to abandon economic development in favor of CO2 crisis theory. Con could not cite a single reference to anyone who believes that would actually work. Con argues that the world scientific community says that climate change is real and imminent danger. Skeptics agree it is real, so that's not an issue. As to imminent danger, scientific truth is not determined by consensus, and if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed. The convincing evidence is that models claimed to describe climate clearly do not work. If it is an imminent danger, that is not a good reason to adopt policies that are extremely expensive and not even claimed to be effective. Consider, for example, the imminent danger posed by nuclear proliferation. How about covering the land area of the earth with Geiger counters every quarter mile, with automatic reporting of anomalous radiation. That would cost trillions of dollars and would be ineffective, in part because the radiation is easily shielded. Nonetheless, everyone would agree that nuclear proliferation is an imminent danger. That does not recommend expensive and useless policies. I suspect readers can come up with many examples of problems that have expensive yet ineffective solutions. We should pursue sensible policies of adapting to climate change and researching cost-effective climate engineering methods. Sources Pro provided tow references to the New Scientist, a non-refereed popular magazine. In one, the statement of journalist that the recent temperature rise is unprecedented was not sourced, and it contradicted by scientific literature referenced by the Environmental protection agency. The other article makes claims about crop growth with enhanced CO2. If one keeps clicking through, one scientific article is referenced, but it is contradicted by the literally hundreds that I referenced. One would think NASA would be a reliable source, but under Hansen, a CO2 fanatic, they have lost all credibility. Hansen says oceans will rise by 25 meters while the pro-CO2-crisis IPCC says nine inches. Under Hansen, the NASA global temperature data is continually revised upwards, contrary to the other three reliable sources. =============== The resolution is affirmed.
-
PRO The main arguments about the cause of global warming...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
CO2 1. CO2 is an odourless and colourless gas. It has properties similar to glass, In that it can reflect some heat radiation. CO2 is also limited in its reflection of radiation in the same manner that glass is limited. Like glass, Is ceases to reflect heat radiation after it reaches its saturation point. In the case of glass - glass which is 2 feet thick will retain or reflect the same amount of heat that which a 1/4 inch glass will reflect. In the case of CO2, Will reach it's saturation point at around 80 parts/ million. Thereafter, CO2 will not reflect any further heat radiation. Therefore, The alarmists nincompoops who keep telling us to not to burn coal so as to avoid increasing the CO2 don't know or understand what the properties of CO2 really are. The main arguments about the cause of global warming concern CO2 as being the main culprit. Yet, The real science doesn't agree with this knee jerk type layman science that we hear from the media. My opponent will say that thousands of scientists agree with climate change principles. This is only because their careers depend on it. It they disagreed with climate change they would find themselves being black listed and unemployed. Thus, It is very unlikely that you will hear any scientist disagree with climate change. 2. Mass relationship with human body and machine weight, Verses Earth size and weight. If you compare the mass and weight of the Earth and compare that mass with the total mass and weight of humans and their machines you will find that the differential ratio is trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions to one. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that humans give out it will always be totally insignificant in relation to the size and mass of the Earth. The laws of physics and heat dissipation in relation to mass tell us that humans just can't affect the global climate of the Earth because humans are way too insignificant and small in relation to the size of the Earth. To put this into the correct perspective - humanity represents 3 grains of sand on a beach while the Earth represents the remainder of the beach. Thus, It doesn't matter how hot those 3 grains of sand get because they are never going to make the rest of the beach any hotter. 3. Government created invisible monsters. Corona virus, Climate change, World War I, World War II, Spanish flu, Holes in the ozone layer, Sars, BSE, Influenza, Ebola, Polio, Zika, HIV, Hong Kong flu, Dengue fever and swine flu. These are all propaganda exercises to make money out of gullible fools. There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. The world did not enter a new human caused ice age in the 1970's as predicted by all the world governments. The two world wars were securing oil in Iraq and not about freedom. Ebola, BSE, Zika and Polio are about pesticides and are not about viruses. Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them.
-
PRO However, scientists at the Department of Energy and...
First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
===Definitions=== First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens. To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong. ===Framework=== The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so. Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change. Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4]. Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries. ===Conclusion=== As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. ===Sources=== [1] http://zfacts.com... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant) [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)
-
PRO Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to...
Scott Brown, Cory Gardner Shift Stance On Climate Change In First Senate Debates
Republican Senate candidates Scott Brown and Cory Gardner on Monday embraced the notion that climate change is caused in part by human activity, despite previously expressing skepticism that man-made climate change is real. Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to unseat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, while Gardner, a congressman from Colorado, is looking to defeat Sen. Mark Udall in that state. Both Senate races, regarded as unexpectedly competitive for Democrats, had debates on Monday -- the first for New Hampshire candidates, the second for Colorado. In both,...
-
PRO Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the...
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
Warming is beneficial Con does not dispute that warming is beneficial, and claims that what should be of concern is the rate of warming. Con offers no evidence that the rate of warming is important, he merely asserts that it is. Global temperature records have only been kept for about 130 years. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Before that, temperature reconstructions are so coarse and uncertain that a claim about rates is pure speculation. Con's source for the speculation is a journalist without scientific credentials. The EPA, referencing the IPCC, contradicts Con explicitly. “Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age.” [16. http://www.epa.gov... ] Con claims that in the past, changes in CO2 were always biogenic and slow. He offers no evidence of that (e.g. volcanoes), and it's irrelevant. He didn't claim harm from rapid CO2 change, only temperature change. Con says he does not believe plants are relatively starved for CO2. My assertion was supported by a reference giving hundreds of studies proving my point, whether it's from evolution or not. A table of experiments in which CO2 levels are artificially increased by about 75% shows that growth usually increases by 25% to 50%. [17. http://www.co2science.org... ] It's only been 11,000 years since the last ice age. The time scale of plant evolution is millions of years, not thousands. [18. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Those who make the climate models agree they failed. "... articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability." [19. http://online.wsj.com... There are four main sources of global temperature data, two from satellites and two from ground stations. Three of the four agree that the last decade has shown cooling. The outlier is NASA, who keeps adjusting past data to make the world warmer. The satellite data is far more trustworthy because is doesn't suffer from a lack of stations in remote areas and it doesn't suffer from the excess warmth of heat islands in developed areas. The satellites show cooling as does the HADCru data compiled in England. Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the decade trend. The summer of 2009 was the coldest on record [20. http://www.prisonplanet.com... ] Since global temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, we would expect recent years to be among the warmest. Nonetheless, temperatures are way below what the CO2 climate models predict, so the models are invalid. The reference plotted the original data sources, and whether the site is biased or not, the data correctly shows the models were invalid. The story of an anomalous year works for a year of two, but not for a whole decade, especially when climate crisis advocates have claimed that they have accounted for everything that could possibly affect climate, Hansen's predictions are wildly at odds with the IPCC report and climate models, which are now known to be too extreme. Hansen says the oceans will rise by 25 meters, while the IPCC says nine inches. Temperatures have risen at the rate of about 1 degree per hundred years until now, so we are seeing the record highs for the hundred years. However, 1 degree per hundred years is not a problem either by temperature directly or rate of increase. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. I claimed that restrictions on fossil fuel usage in the US would have little effect. Con did not dispute my claim. If we make no policy decisions to cut our CO2 emissions, we'll drop from the present 18% of world emissions to less than 5%. Con says that while the restrictions are pointless from any practical viewpoint, Con says we should do it so we can proclaim how great we are. If it didn't cost anything, that might be nice, but it costs a whole lot. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Con appears to agree that an expense of $25 trillions or so in the US could lower the earth's temperature by only 0.026 degree. A reduction of only 0.026 is pointless, so clearly it is no grounds for being a policy objective. Con argues that we should aim for more modest cuts. Why, if dramatic cuts have no useful effect? EPA mandates recently imposed will cost $78 billion per year for the next 90 years. That's $7 trillion spread over the 90 years. In return, according to the EPA analysis, the earth's temperature will be reduced by 0.00375° C. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That is not measurable. We should not spend large sums to achieve a result that is not measurable. By comparison, $15.6 billion was spent on AIDS research in a recent year, a shortfall of $7.7 billion. [21. http://www.avert.org... ] There is no justifications for a policy that spends $78 billion on a result that cannot even be detected if successful while the money is much better spent on things that do measurable good. Con ignored the lost opportunity costs. The US has a critical dependence on foreign oil and badly needs jobs and tax revenues. Yet, over $300 trillion in energy reserves are locked away for no reason other than fear of CO2. The government gets about 40% of oil profits directly in taxes, and more from the incomes of employees in the energy business. Our deficit is about $15 trillion and the economy is a disaster. We need the revenue. 5. Con claims consensus Skeptics of CO2 crisis have long agreed global temperatures are rising. However, climate models predicting things like a six degree rise by 2010 are disproved. Con seems to agree that policies of inhibiting CO2 will cost trillions of dollars and have no practical effect. Statements of imminent danger do not change the basic fact that policies to suppress CO2 in the US are destroying the economy by draining resources and fostering foreign dependence, while having no measurable effect on climate. Scientists have no special authority to claim that pointless policies should be instituted. A far better approach is to allowi economic growth and use the prosperity to adapt to climate change, regardless of what causes climate change. Prosperity can support things like water projects that make a real difference in food production. That will have a much larger effect than a degree or two of warming. We should also continue research on climate. Climate engineering solutions have been offered than would artificially reduce world temperatures at relatively low cost. [22. http://www.usatoday.com... ] The objection to climate engineering is that climate is so poorly understood that the effects cannot be assessed. That claim is odd, since CO2 crisis claims involve climate being completely understood. The crisis advocates are on to something this time; climate is not well understood. Con tried a character attack on all MIT climate scientists, Calling them “nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists.” Con didn't respond to the reasons for the new effort. Even the biased Wikipedia came up with a list of 75 reputable climate scientists skeptical of CO2 crisis. [23. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The resolution is affirmed.
CON
-
CON Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.
-
CON Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
-
CON When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on...
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...
-
CON So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Alright... So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the burden of demonstrating your claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. *I* just have to demonstrate that it's not necessarily true. Dividing it into percentages or fractions doesn't make any sense. Think of it like a courtroom, the defense is just trying to refute the claims of the prosecution, and doesn't carry a higher burden than that. Anyway, my contentions haven't been addressed at all... My opponent just re-read another statement with Trump saying he doesn't believe in climate change but my original contention already refutes that as it discredits the words of Trump and actually looks deeper into his intentions as a presidential candidate. My opponent's guilty of oversimplifying the situation here. Thank you. Good luck in your last round.
-
CON And even if it did, progress would be too slow. ... No,...
Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.
Zarul: 1. You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. Reply: No, it's not hypothetical because what is being debated is one variable about demand for trees. If you want more trees, you want the demand for trees to be as high as possible and recycling paper prevents that. What recycling doesn't have an effect on is saving native forests, which I will get to later. Zarul: As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Reply: Go to Office Max, go to the paper section. Recycled on one self, non-recycled on the other. They are competing. Zarul: "Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. Zarul: A.When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment." Reply: Yes, and then you plant it again and it grows back. Zarul: B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. …if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. Reply: Yes, they keep growing. But what you are leaving out is that they only keep growing in one direction because gravity takes a toll after a while—That's why trees don't grow to be the size of sky scrappers. Trees have an initial growth spurt where they use the most carbon dioxide (growing in two dimensions) and then level off. Old forests really do little for carbon dioxide regulation. http://www.usatoday.com... Zarul: D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. Reply: 1. Leaves are what regulate carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis separates the carbon from the oxygen and stores the carbon in the wood and roots. 2. The discussion was about climate change, not biodiversity or soil erosion. With breakthroughs in genetic mapping, we don't need nature to be the record keeper of genetics. Erosion is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human interaction. Luckily since about the middle ages we have figured out to reduce this with field rotation, and other modern methods. So for point E: If the land were privately held, the tree farmer would keep it at a minimum to ensure more growth and higher profits. Zarul: F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. Reply: How do species going extinct cause climate change? CO2 is the end product of metabolism. If anything, that would lead to less carbon dioxide. Ofcourse I'm not saying we should kill off every animal because they produce C02, just that you need to think through some more about what climate change is. Zarul: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. Reply: No, the countries that contribute the most to climate change are Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The number one cause of deforestation is clearing of land for farming. Urban development, mining, oil extraction, and logging are others. Paper has little to do with virgin forests. By making tree farming more profitable, you are encouraging that at least some of that land will be kept for re-growing trees. Zarul: Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. Reply: No, it would most likely be an American or European country that makes the discovery and uses it in lands in other countries. Why this hasn't happened yet is a separate issue dealing with farm welfare in America and Europe. Zarul: "You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? Reply: Where the national ones are now. If you are poor and the forest is what stands in your way of planting a crash crop, then you will cut it down. If we didn't recycle paper, trees would be more valuable as a resource, so instead of cutting down the forest to farm wheat, you might be more inclined to cut down the forest and replant it. (ofcourse, there are also some trade policies that affect this, but that is neither here nor their) Zarul: My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. Reply: The burden of proof is on you. Zarul: You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved." Reply: Because it is happening now, and the deforestation has little to do with paper and more to do with clearing land for farming other things. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging the farming of trees over other things. Zarul: Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. Reply: But the new wood is picked up from one centralized location—where it is being farmed. To recycle paper you have to have several trucks drive vast distances to collect what amounts to little paper per unit of distance traveled. If it were so much cheaper to recycle, then private companies would have started doing it a long time ago. Instead the government has to subsidies it (with money taken by force), which hides the true costs. Follow the prices. Zarul: C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. Reply: No they won't. We can afford to waste money on recycling because we are rich. Recycling is not an industry. Here is the fallacy of that argument: Suppose I went around every house on my block and broke a window by throwing a rock through it. The person who fixes windows would get a lot of business. Is this helping the economy? No, because the money people spend on fixing their windows means they have to forgo something else—instead of buying a new window, they could have bought some new pants.So you see recycling as creating jobs, so it must be good for the economy, but you are forgetting that by creating those jobs, you are forgoing spending that money on something. That's all I could fit in. Well done, good luck to you.
-
CON The warming of the earht is not unusual. ... If anything...
Climate Shift
Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says "the scientist say its right, so its right." Climate change models have been failing for years now. It was predicted that by 2013 there would benno polar ice left. In 2013 the ice capsnincreased massively. In fact, there was little polarnice in the 1930s, but the ice increased rapidly until the 80s when they started to shrink again. The warming of the earht is not unusual. The medieval warming period had heats hotter then the heat today. The little ice following it had tempatures far colder then today. This shows heat change is normal. In fact overall planet tempature has decrised since the 90s. The super hurricanes predicted by envirmentalist have not come. The hurricanes of the early 1900s were far stronger then today's. The hurricane that destroyed galvistonnis a good example. If anything shows the fallacy of climate change, it is the mound of failed environmentalists predictions.
-
CON Source CDC [6]. ... I had to give up on the pictures was...
Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.
Outline I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. V. Climate has steadily increased VI. Conclusion VII. Works cited Round three rebuttals. I will now respond to my opponent’s round one and two arguments. In round four I will respond to round three and round five I will respond to round four. This is out of fairness since my opponent will not get a chance to respond to my round five. I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth When you add more Co2 to the atmosphere, The Co2 reaches a higher point in space, Increasing the greenhouse warming effect. The greenhouse warming effect is nowhere near saturation. The myth revolves around the misrepresentation that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, So therefore, Greenhouse warming is at a saturation point. While it is true that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, Some of the heat escapes further up into the atmosphere. Thus, More Co2 will reach further into the atmosphere. Insert picture of Australia and heat rising if possible from skepticalscience. Dana1981 updated July 2015. [5] II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. First, There are climate change scientists, And they are only about 100 of them, They are experts within experts on climate change. Second, There are many scientists who disagree about climate change in less related fields, And they still have their jobs. Source Denial 101x course. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. A virus is very small compared to a human. Yet, The measles virus kills over 100, 000 people a year. The flu viruses kills 291, 000 and 646, 000 people each year. Source CDC [6]. Viruses are measured in nanometer or one billionth of a meter. Source [7] britannica. Com That’s one millionth of a millimeter. Now if viruses kill humans everyday it is very possible for humans to act like a virus and destroy the atmosphere of the Earth. Destroying the Earth as in Darth Vader and the Death Star would be extremely difficult given our current level of technology, But destroying the atmosphere. Yes, Very feasible. Two main ways, One global cooling through nuclear winter. Option two, Global warming through greenhouse gas emission. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. First, I will add that governments historically have performed terrible atrocities, Slaves of Sparta, Slaughter of native Americans Indians during colonial times, Slave state of blacks in southern USA, The Armenian genocide, WWII holocaust of the Jews, And many more. Therefore, The instigator is correct to have a baseline level of mistrust for government. Yet, This mistrust is taken too far and thus extreme. I concur that Iraq probably was about the oil and not about freedom. Yet, Of that long list of conspiracy theories that is the only point I agree with. The world did not go into an Ice Age because we stopped using aerosols that damaged the ozone layer which also caused global cooling. Most of the conspiracies seemed to be linked to medical and viruses which is off-topic and pseudoscience. Ironically the instigator is the one who is confused by invisible monsters. Quacks constantly fear monger. Brain fog, Leaky gut syndrome, chemtrails, BPA, and many more invisible monsters to scare innocents out of money. BPA for example there just is not enough information according to sciencebasedmedicine. Org Steven Novella September 17th 2008. Just look at this sentence “Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them. ” Akhenaten Just replace governments with quacks. Thus, The world quacks constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science. A confused mass of people has not got time because they are so preoccupied running and hiding from invisible monsters that the quacks create to scare them. V. Climate has steadily increased I will now respond to round one. Here is a picture, Hopefully of how ocean water temperatures have steadily increased. Yes climate change is human made, The change is mostly due to Co2 from burning of fossil fuels via industrial activities. About the communists and dictators this is an inflammatory, False accusation, And bare assertion. Finally, The link between climate change and communist shows overt conservative bias on the instigator’s part, Reds under the bed mentality. Most like this person has a high belief in free market and thus disbelieving climate change on those grounds. Deciding that climate change is false and then looking for evidence to back up the decision as opposed to looking for evidence first and then a conclusion. I learned the above from the denial 101x course about deniers come to a conclusion first and look for evidence second. The conclusion is based upon strong belief in a free market economy. VI. Conclusion I have show how my opponent’s claim about Co2 saturation is misleading since Earth is nowhere near a greenhouse saturation point. Co2 is only saturated at the surface, But some of the heat escapes higher into the atmosphere and then trapped by Co2 higher in the atmosphere. I have disproved my opponent’s claim about scientists being fired for disagreeing with climate change, Plenty in unrelated fields do and keep their jobs. I have shown that humans can have a tremendous impact on the climate despite having a small mass compared to the Earth. First, With an analogy of a virus to a human. Despite the virus being much smaller, Still being able to kill humans. Second, Humans could easily cause a nuclear winter and thus global cooling. Finally, Global warming can be caused via excessive atmospheric Co2. Quacks are doing the fear mongering, Not governments. Global warming is occurring now costing 150, 000 lives annually and can be seen by rising ocean temperatures. VII. Works cited debate. Org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/4346963/ Hopefully this work cited works. I had to give up on the pictures was not posting.
-
CON I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but...
The political science of climate change
That was great, very professional. As I am in no way a polished or trained debater I relish the opportunity to rebut your arguments. It is truly fun to mix it up with the ivory tower crowd! I probably should have made this at least 5 rounds, but maybe next time. I will attempt to put this in a format that is organized, but please forgive me if you get confused. Green Guilt Is there anyone on the planet that would disagree that the IPCC is the driving force behind the religion of AGW, even fabricating, or manipulating data in order to prove their foregone conclusion? Here is a good article explaining the problems with the IPCC. http://wattsupwiththat.com... See, they actually are political, but when people only follow what .gov tells them they miss these things. As far as green guilt goes, it is part of the religion of Climate Change, kind of like sinning. Teach the children to feel guilty, especially here in America and they will follow blindly. Eugenicists A couple articles on that. http://www.edie.net... http://www.thenewamerican.com... Who are the elite globalist eugenicists? Here they are. http://truthstreammedia.com... By the way you never addressed Agenda 21, the bible of the modern eugenic billionaires. The Globalist Elites Bill Gates and Soros, two of the most influential Soros even helped the Nazis confiscate Jews property during the holocaust and has no remorse, in his own words. http://thearrowsoftruth.com... http://say-no-to-agenda-21-de-population.blogspot.com... I do appreciate that you cited scholarly articles however I doubt that you personally could prove any part of them except that they were written by folks that desperately want to keep their high paying, world traveling, taxpayer subsidized jobs, and are willing to write almost anything to make the politicians happy, and who buys the politicians? The Elites. I will go further into Agenda 21 as I really would like your input on this. My take is that United Nations Agenda 21 is a soft tyranny based eugenic plan formed with the blessing of Gates, Soros and their henchmen that live above the world in partnership with entities like the UN and The World Bank. The plan is very complicated, well thought out, and full of players/minions that think of nothing except how they can get a big paycheck from these guys. Agenda 21 starts with creating the illusion that humans are wrecking the planet with CO2, which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, measured in parts per MILLION, and is actually very beneficial to plants. It is plant food, and is barely detectable, except it is the perfect measure to justify their energy reducing actions. There is a man named Maurice Strong who may be one of the most influential players you never heard of, but he is very powerful and has been pulling strings at the UN for a long long time. Here is some background. http://www.infowars.com... I prefer you watch the videos of Soros and Strong as their own words convict themselves as eugenic minded elites. By the way the industrialized world he is talking about dismantling is us, so park your carbon spewing conveyance, and ride a bike to work, or maybe you do already. The goal of agenda 21 is to move the vast majority of population into cities and to reclaim the land for use only by elites and their slaves, like the ones Marx wanted to till the fields. Are you familiar with Marxism? All of the elites are into it big time, even our president. Anyway, I want to give you a chance to rebut so I will leave you with all that, make of it what you will and please do not hesitate to challenge me and we can go 5 or more rounds if you are interested, I love to challenge the establishment. Thanks!
-
CON This is a major point that needs to be discussed. ......
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
Yes I did read your link (http://www.epa.gov...). I read the way the EPA stated "As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change." I then further read under the category of "What's Not Certain" the EPA states it is not certain about "Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes." I surely do not want to go back and forth on this point, but the EPA article that you continue referring to specifically states that it is unknown what contributions the human activity has to climate change. Furthermore, the EPA's research is under suspicion anyway. There are two EPA workers who are highly critical of the EPA's memo on carbon gas. The are critical of both the substances of and the process behind the agency's proposed findings. (http://www.washingtontimes.com...) Additionally, in November of 2009, over 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were posted on the internet. The emails show how scientists have been altering climate date and hiding information which proves global warming caused by man to be false. These emails included some from American Scientist John Holdren, a top adviser to the president and he wrote that scientists who opposed the theories of climate change were "amateurs." He referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide and decline" temperature figures. Yet another mentioned how he was bothered to release date that could challenge climate change. (http://climategateemail.com...) (http://www.eastangliaemails.com...) In Terms of the NASA link you posted, yes I agree they said there was record melting in 2008. This is a major point that needs to be discussed. We are talking about an average over a long period of time to determine warming. Everyone would agree that one hour or one day of higher than normal temperatures does not constitute as a long enough time to establish global warming. For some reason, global warming supporters find a year or two or three to be sufficient enough to produce a trend of warmth. The EPA report you continue to quote says that it is uncertain in "Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range." If your coveted EPA cannot project future climate changes, how can you? They continue to explain they aren't certain about "Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover." There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist. There are questions of the EPA suppressing evidence of their finding. The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change. I must defer back to you yet again after you read all this compelling evidence and explain that the burden or proof is yours to prove and without it, American Only regulations cannot be expected. I didn't expect to have to continue showing all this information on how global warming is yet to be proven and how your EPA records are more under question and uncertain than your statements represent. As we all know, the earth has been warming and cooling since its existence. There was an Ice Age about 22,000 years ago, then the earth warmed for a bit and started to cool again for the Little Ice Age which began warming again around 1680. There was no proof or even reason to believe the earth was cooling and heating for all those years due to carbon gases from humans. (http://canadafreepress.com...) This is where the "Hockey Stick" graph makes its entrance, around 1998. For those who are not familiar with this, it is a climate graph which is one of the initial pieces of information to start the global warming hysteria. This graph mapped out a zero increase in temperature over the past 1,000 years with a sudden spike starting in the 20th century. The research which produced this used tree ring data for the first 1,000 years of its study and then added modern temperature date for the 20th century. These tree rings were hand picked and often discarded if they did not conform to the uniformity as the others did. A dendroclimatologist (one who studies climate using tree rings) told the US Congressional Committee that, "...this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology." This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The hockey stick was eventually unmasked by one of the most basic forms of scientific testing we know today; the reproducibility test. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick attempted to reproduce this hockey stick and were unable to do so. They even requested date and formulas from Mann (the person who came up with the hockey stick in 1998) and he would not disclose the codes and formulas he used to achieve his results. This raised even more suspicion since the hockey stick was published work and the methods as to how the results were found were not being disclosed. (http://canadafreepress.com...) The US National Academy of Sciences appointed a committee to investigate this matter between McIntyre/McKitrick and Mann. Ultimately, they found in favor of McIntyre and McKitrick. They explained that they tried to reproduce the date themselves and while they could not reproduce the hockey stick Mann has suggested, they were able to reproduce the findings of McIntyre and McKitrick. (http://canadafreepress.com...) To date, Mann still refuses to disclose his formula and codes; very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today.
-
CON Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is...
The climate is not "a changing".
The climate is changing, And I will argue this point from a geologic/anthropological perspective in the coming rounds. Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. Your discounting of authority is irrelevant to me. With this being said, I will save my arguments for climate change for the coming round. Round structure wasn't specified and I assume it's ok since you're doing the same thing.
