Topic space view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms
  • CON

    First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Thank you for posting this debate, I hope to be a worthy opponent!!!! Your argument is based on the pope's opinion as well as a scientific documentary My argument will be based on historical evidence as well as current scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Global Climate Change First I'd like to clarify that Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same theory with a different name and I will treat them as such. First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or Warming) Thus the theory of Global Climate Change (warming) is - a change in global climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onward and attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. I'd like to give a more simplified version of the above statement by giving this general statement released by the IPCC on what Climate Change is "Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change." Next, I'd like to refute my opponent's arguments Argument 1) Pope Francis recognizes climate change and he "Knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat" My Response: Pope Francis has no college degree in science (he does have a "titulo" as a chemical technician, which is not a college degree) and either way he is not a climatologist and his opinion does not count as an expert's opinion and his opinion is on par with the opinion of world leaders and celebrities... Essentially, his opinion on climate change is just as important as the opinion of Vladimir Putin's, neither count as an expert, but their opinion's count as a World Leader's opinion. Argument 2) An Inconvenient Truth My Response: I will watch the entirety of this movie so I can refute the movie in my next argument Now I will give my basic arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid During World War II, U.S. oil production increased by 3 billion barrels annually during the war. Both the Allies and the Axis used incredible amounts of oil and the best scientific data available, which is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shows that carbon dioxide levels literally "flat-lined" during the decade between 1940 and 1950 staying at 311.3 PPM and actually going down between 1941 and 1945, (the period that the US was in the war) [1] So, how did burning another 12+ billion barrels of oil not increase CO2???? Because, there is no direct link between oil usage and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Of course CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of oil, but that CO2 has had little to no affect on atmospheric CO2 as seen in my example above. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... According to the UAH and RSS climate research satellites there had been no warming between the late 90's and 2015 in fact 2014, was only .01 degrees hotter than 2005, and 2013 was only .02 degrees warmer than 2005. The conclusion from the analysis of the data is that while there has been a .05 degree warming trend since 2002, according to researchers that is "statistically insignificant" [2] The small upward trend from 1978 to 2015 is .2 degrees Celsius and is once again classifiable as statistically insignificant and is not proof of any man made global warming, in fact the lack of a significant upward trend shows not only that global warming predictions on climate and temperatures have been well off, but that there may not be any man made global warming at all. (excuse the site on the chart, woodfortrees.org is not where I got the chart, the source I used for the chart is the one listed as source 2) 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory NASA satillites discovered that the antarctic sea ice had reached a new record high in 2012 and then again in 2014, in 2014 it set a record for the largest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history [3]. Global Warming theory dictates that the Ice caps would begin to melt at an alarming rate, but if that's the case then how come this has occurred. In fact Al Gore and many Global Warming theorists stated that the ice caps would be completley gone by 2013, when the exact opposite has occurred. The red line in the photo is the largest that the ice had ever been recorded at. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases look at both of the below charts, the first chart is CO2 and temperature data for the last 750 million years, each blue dot represents the temperature and CO2 levels. What you can see is that the dots are everywhere and seemingly when CO2 is raised the dots tend to be higher, but there are several dots (call them outliers if you wish) that even nearing 5000 PPM CO2 are still cooler than the average Earth Temperature. On top of this, why are there dots near the 1000 PPM range that are higher up on the anomaly range than the dots at 7000 PPM. The Second chart shows CO2 and Temperature from 1999 to 2014, what can be seen is a very, very small trend line which is again considered Statistically Insignificant, showing no proof of a global climate change. (specifically the trend is .00668, which is essentially 0 to statisticians) [4] s://s17.postimg.io...; alt="" /> s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> Both Charts show a lack of evidence with CO2 and Temperature, In fact, it could be said that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature Change. However IPCC's definition of Global Climate Change requires such a correlation and if such a correlation is not apparent than Climate Change theory is flawed and thus Global Climate Change would not exist. So, based on all 4 of my points I am in firm negation of the topic in which we are debating. Thank you for reading this argument and looking at my charts!!! I hope you understood it, and I can't to see your next round. I'd like to remind my opponent of his BoP, which because of him being the pro he must prove specifically that Man Made Climate change is real and a threat he must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, my BoP is not to disprove Climate Change but rather to cast a shadow of a doubt, similar to a court case the judges must not have ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he has won or they must give me the victory. Sources: [1]http://data.giss.nasa.gov... [2]http://dailycaller.com... [3]http://www.nasa.gov... [4]https://wattsupwiththat.com... In case the charts/pics dont show up... Here are each of the chars on an external link: 1: http://dailycaller.com... 2: http://www.nasa.gov... 3:https://s17.postimg.io... 4: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./4/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.34
      climate: 17.56
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 8.26 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.72)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 11.78
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.44 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.72)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • PRO

    I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate....

    The political science of climate change

    I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate. In his initial comments, CON has made several claims, which I will list here for clarity’s sake: 1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues propaganda in an attempt to “strike fear into gullible people,” with the purpose of “creating green guilt.” 2) The phrase 'global warming’ is used by “modern eugenicists” for the purpose of reducing the population of the United States, which they see as “fat, overconsuming planetary destroyers.” 3) Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming are being used as pawns by the “globalist elite” who are trying to limit the world population to those like themselves. These are some quite interesting claims; I look forward to CON providing evidence for them.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.30
      climate: 17.05
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 12.25
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)
  • CON

    The philosophy of the elites like Soros, Gates, Strong...

    The political science of climate change

    Sorry, but your response is nothing more then repeating what I said which is no response at all in essence. The fact is that the IPCC has released junk data as gospel truth repeatedly, and therefore we have to look at who is funding them and what their motivation is. The philosophy of the elites like Soros, Gates, Strong and Gore is that the earth is overpopulated, and the basis behind that philosophy is that eugenics is the cure, either by taxation or by policies such as encouraging abortion. Could you try a little harder please, or do you just expect everyone to follow the 97% religion because they have endowed themselves with the ability to predict the future? The expert weather forecasters can't tell us if it will rain tomorrow with great accuracy, but we are expected to believe a small group of ideologues from the IPCC can predict something as complex as how the climate will change? Please.....

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.30
      climate: 17.05
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)
      change: 12.25
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)
  • PRO

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed...

    The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change

    It is through heavy industrialisation that developed countries are developed – since they contributed more to climate change, they have a greater obligation to resolve it. Climate change has largely been caused by long-term emissions by developed countries. While China is now the world’s biggest CO2 emitter and other developing countries emissions are rapidly rising historically the vast majority of emissions have been from developed nations. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[1] As CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for a long time, about 50% will be removed within 30 years, but 20% or more may remain for thousands of years, the history of emissions is as relevant as current emissions.[2] Since they contribute more of the damage, and since each nation has a responsibility for the harm it has caused, developed nations have an increased obligation to combat climate change. [1] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions... [2] Inman, Mason, ‘Carbon is forever’, Nature Reports Climate Change, 20 November 2008, http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

  • PRO

    6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. ......

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    R3 Rebuttals Opponent's statements will be in bold and italics, mine in plain text. "Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]" medv4380 Correct, here is why. "Evaporation is one of the two forms of vaporization. It is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state. It is the opposite process of condensation. The thermal motion of a molecule of liquid must be sufficient to overcome the surface tension and evaporate, that is, its kinetic energy must exceed the work function of cohesion at the surface. Evaporation therefore, proceeds more quickly at higher temperature, at higher flow rates between the gaseous and liquid phase and in liquids with lower surface tension (i.e. higher vapor pressure)." [6] "Imagine Mann has made a mistake" medv4380 This paragraph is conjecture. My opponent has not proven Mann has made a mistake. In the next paragraph notice my opponent's word choices. Dissenters and alarmists. There is a reason why climate change deniers are called deniers. This is because deniers use a thought process called denial. Denial is when a person comes to a conclusion and then looks for facts to reinforce the conclusion. Skeptics take the full body of evidence and then come to a conclusion. Scientists are skeptics. Therefore, the correct language is deniers and scientists. I'm skipping some sections because either the argument is truthful or so vague I don't see how it related to the debate. "Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation?" medv4380 Temperature, precipitation, and evaporation are all linked. The link between temperature and evaporation is already shown. [6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. Rain forests are known for being hot and humid. The east Antarctica ice sheet is increasing in sea ice mass due to increase precipitation which is due to increased temperatures. Therefore, higher temperatures increase both precipitation and evaporation. " However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases." [7] Now that warming temperatures causes an increase in both evaporation and precipitation has been established, the temperature in the 70's is where to look. "Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased." [8] Man-made aerosols was responsible for the cooling trend in the 70s. Thus the temperature decreased despite Co2 increasing, lowering evaporation and precipitation. This is a cherry picking fallacy on my opponent's part. By focusing on the period of cooling caused by aerosols in the 70's and ignoring the overall trend that more Co2 increases temperature which increase precipitation and evaporation. Cherry picking "Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [9] "It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation." medv4380 You are correct, that some glaciers are gaining mass. Yet, the overall trend is that glaciers are losing mass. The graph above shows that overall glaciers are losing mass. [10] Here's a graph of the temperatures to further prove that temperatures were low in the 70's but the overall trend is upwards after the 1950s. [11] "Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data." medv4380 This last paragraph is jumping to conclusions. My opponent does not sufficiently explain how these phenomena effect climate change. Fact: Increases in Co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change. Myth: Other causes are the primary driver. Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. [12] My opponent uses various sources. One is the low crediblity Heartland institute. "Factual Reporting: LOW Notes: The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. " [13] "The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects). " [14] Another source is wikipedia. "Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. "[15] Finally, my opponent uses Ivar Giaever. "While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows." [16] Ivar Giaever is a fake expert. Giaever lacks the credential and experience in climate change. Sources 6. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://skepticalscience.com... 9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 10. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. https://www.climate.gov... 12. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... to conclusions 13. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 14. http://rationalwiki.org... 15. isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 16. http://www.snopes.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.23
      climate: 17.55
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)
      change: 11.69
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.98)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • PRO

    Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically...

    That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

    First off the arguments are not irrelevant. Second I would like to say that the fourth round will be a closing statement and no new points shall be brought up, sorry I forgot to say this in round one. Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 10.Acad"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Also I would like to point out my stance is specifically that humans influence climate change, not that they're the cause. Now for round three I will also be using graphs and videos to present my argument. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... - Videos #t=416 #t=22 http://www.wunderground.com... - Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action 1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile 2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal 3.Academia de Ciencias de la Rep"blica Dominicana 4.Academia de Ciencias F"sicas, Matem"ticas y Naturales de Venezuela 5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico 7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia 8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 9.Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 10.Acad"mie des Sciences France 11.Academies of Arts Humanities and Sciences of Canada 12.Academy of Athens 13.Academy of Science of Mozambique 14.Academy of Science of South Africa 15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia 17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova 18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand 22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei Italy 23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science 24.African Academy of Sciences 25.Albanian Academy of Sciences 26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute 27.American Academy of Pediatrics 28.American Anthropological Association 29.American Association for the Advancement of Science 30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) 31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 32.American Astronomical Society 33.American Chemical Society 34.American College of Preventive Medicine 35.American Fisheries Society 36.American Geophysical Union 37.American Institute of Biological Sciences 38.American Institute of Physics 39.American Meteorological Society 40.American Physical Society 41.American Public Health Association 42.American Quaternary Association 43.American Society for Microbiology 44.American Society of Agronomy 45.American Society of Civil Engineers 46.American Society of Plant Biologists 47.American Statistical Association 48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 49.Australian Academy of Science 50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology 51.Australian Coral Reef Society 52.Australian Institute of Marine Science 53.Australian Institute of Physics 54.Australian Marine Sciences Association 55.Australian Medical Association 56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences 58.Botanical Society of America 59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences 60.British Antarctic Survey 61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 62.California Academy of Sciences 63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences 64.Canadian Association of Physicists 65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences 66.Canadian Geophysical Union 67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 68.Canadian Society of Soil Science 69.Canadian Society of Zoologists 70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views 71.Center for International Forestry Research 72.Chinese Academy of Sciences 73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences 74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) 75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences 77.Crop Science Society of America 78.Cuban Academy of Sciences 79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters 80.Ecological Society of America 81.Ecological Society of Australia 82.Environmental Protection Agency 83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts 84.European Federation of Geologists 85.European Geosciences Union 86.European Physical Society 87.European Science Foundation 88.Federation of American Scientists 89.French Academy of Sciences 90.Geological Society of America 91.Geological Society of Australia 92.Geological Society of London 93.Georgian Academy of Sciences 94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina 95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences 96.Indian National Science Academy 97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences 98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management 99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology 100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand 101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK 102.InterAcademy Council 103.International Alliance of Research Universities 104.International Arctic Science Committee 105.International Association for Great Lakes Research 106.International Council for Science 107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences 108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society 109.International Union for Quaternary Research 110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics 112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences 113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences 115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology 116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts 117.l'Acad"mie des Sciences et Techniques du S"n"gal 118.Latin American Academy of Sciences 119.Latvian Academy of Sciences 120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences 122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology 123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts 124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina 125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic 127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka 128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America 129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration 130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers 131.National Association of State Foresters 132.National Center for Atmospheric Research 133.National Council of Engineers Australia 134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand 135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 136.National Research Council 137.National Science Foundation 138.Natural England 139.Natural Environment Research Council UK 140.Natural Science Collections Alliance 141.Network of African Science Academies 142.New York Academy of Sciences 143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences 144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences 145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters 146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey 147.Organization of Biological Field Stations 148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences 149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology 150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change 151.Polish Academy of Sciences 152.Romanian Academy 153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain 155.Royal Astronomical Society UK 156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 157.Royal Irish Academy 158.Royal Meteorological Society UK 159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research 161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan 162.Royal Society of Canada 163.Royal Society of Chemistry UK 164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom 165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 166.Russian Academy of Sciences 167.Science and Technology Australia 168.Science Council of Japan 169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research 170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics 171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography 172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 173.Slovak Academy of Sciences 174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts 175.Society for Ecological Restoration International 176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 177.Society of American Foresters 178.Society of Biology UK 179.Society of Systematic Biologists 180.Soil Science Society of America 181.Sudan Academy of Sciences 182.Sudanese National Academy of Science 183.Tanzania Academy of Sciences 184.The Wildlife Society International 185.Turkish Academy of Sciences 186.Uganda National Academy of Sciences 187.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 188.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 189.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 190.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 191.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums 192.World Federation of Public Health Associations 193.World Forestry Congress 194.World Health Organization 195.World Meteorological Organization 196.Zambia Academy of Sciences 197.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences And military's and etc... Cant list every organization or I'd run out of room. - Graphs http://www.procon.org... http://www.procon.org... http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.desmogblog.com... http://catefaehrmann.org... - Conclusion Ever since the Industrial Age earths temperature has been rising at an alarming rate, and we should be aware. Also You brought up CO2 in almost every paragraph. As the UN climate summit approaches, we must remember that over 50% of climate change is caused by gases and pollutants other than CO2. Like black carbon, CFC's, and etc.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-Humans-Are-Causing-Climate-Change/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.20
      climate: 17.56
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 6.16 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.28)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.64
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.48 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.96)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)
  • PRO

    They generate artificial disasters such as climate change...

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    CO2 is a trace gas. It constitutes only a meagre 0. 04% of the atmosphere. Water vapour contributes 85 % of the Earth's cooling effect, Whereas CO2 only contributes 15 % of the heating effects. The Earth is not a green house. A green house is an enclosed environment which has little or no air circulation. On the other hand, The Earth is an open system where air is free to circulate. The air is constantly moving from the cooler polar regions to the warmer tropical regions. The Earth acts like a thermostat and is definitively nothing like a greenhouse. Note - The term greenhouse was used before the invention of the thermostat. A thermostat uses water to regulate temperature so that the temperature remains constant. This is how the Earth climate system works. The more heat that is generated creates more cloud which in turn provides more cooling. Thus, The Earth's temperature remains constant. The science community likes to cling to the past when it suits them. This is because the science community needs to feel important and wanted. They generate artificial disasters such as climate change and Corona Viruses to create income and work opportunities. This is done to make their lives better with more jobs, Better wages and career prospects due to an abundance of research work. Thus, You will never find any scientists that disagrees with climate change otherwise they will get black listed and find themselves unemployable. Note - I do understand CO2's properties because I have studied CO2 graphs and read research papers for the last 10 years on this matter.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.13
      climate: 17.52
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 11.60
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 3.27 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.27)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    I believe that climate change is serious and urgent...

    Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity

    I accept this debate. I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it.

  • PRO

    The first round will just be for acceptance. ... I...

    Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity

    This will be a debate about whether man-made climate change is currently occurring and how it will affect the earth. The first round will just be for acceptance. I believe climate change is occurring, is caused by man and will have severe effects on the ecosystems of earth and would like to have a discussion with someone who disagrees.

  • PRO

    Germs have never been a threat to humans. ... If it is...

    Climate change is a fraud

    You haven't addressed the issue of scientists not being asked if the problem was urgent or important. You haven't addressed the fact that 90% of the scientists who did the survey were not included in the results. Note - Plate tectonics is total nonsense. See Expanding Earth video. Note - A pulling gravity is total nonsense. See Robert Distinti website. Thus, My opponent is using one lie as evidence to promote another further lie. Note - Multi-layering of lies doesn't equal truth. 2. Quote - The human species has created enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth even though we are a relatively small portion of the total mass Reply - A totally unrelated analogy. This debate is about have much heat each human produces which is nothing like an atomic explosion. Thus, My opponent is fear mongering and creating unrealistic analogies. Quote - Viruses and bacteria are microscopic but can cause big effects (including death) in us. So being small does not mean you can have no effect. Reply - More lies to protect other lies. Viruses don't exist. I know, Because I have worked in a biology lab and I know the truth about these things. Germs have never been a threat to humans. It is only a bad diet which can cause disease. See my other debates on The Corona Virus Fraud. Quote - That's actually a faulty analogy because humans don't release the heat that warms the globe. That comes from the sun, Which has a mass over 300, 000 times that of the Earth. Reply - Good! That's the first sensible thing you have written so far. It's the sun which creates the Earth's climate and humans have nothing to do with it. Imagine if the sun suddenly disappeared. What would happen? Answer- The Earth would freeze to 4 degrees above absolute zero. Could the tiny humans prevent this from happening with all their fossil fuels? Answer - No chance. Thus, This little logic exercise proves that the puny human race is totally defenceless against what the sun does or doesn't do. 3. Quote - That's not the same as a saturation point because the heat trapped is still increasing, Just more slowly. I linked a graph in my last argument showing a clear linear increase on a graph with a logarithmic scale for CO2 concentration. Reply - The increases in reflectivity after the saturation point are so minute that they are not worth consideration. I have seen the graphs. Quote -Leading to greater evaporation of water and creating a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the warming. Reply - Water vapour causes a thermostatic effect. The more heat creates more water vapour which creates more cooling. Thus, The Earth is a self regulating thermostat which can cool itself if it does happen to get a tiny bit warmer. Note - There is no warming feed back which my opponent falsely claims without any evidence. 5. Quote from NOAA - Tree ring data have been used to reconstruct drought or temperature in North America and Europe over the past 2, 000 years. For example, Tree ring based drought reconstructions for the American Southwest indicate a period of prolonged drought in the late 1200’s. Archaeologists believe that the drought was a contributing factor in the Ancestral Pueblo People abandoning the famous cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde, Never to return. Reply - This only tells us that it was drier and has nothing to do with temperature. Thus, My opponent is making false claims about tree ring data as being able to determine previous temperatures. Quote - An inverted graph is an example of fraud--and one which can easily be caught by the process of peer review to stop such a study from ever making it into a reputable journal. Reply - It depends more on whether the information is pro-climate change or against climate change. If it is pro-climate change, Then the peer review system will endorse it as being valid regardless of how irrational, Corrupt, Evil, Conniving, Underhanded, Evasive and deceptive that the information is.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 29.07
      climate: 17.20
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)
      change: 11.87
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 2.70 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.05)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)