args

CON

• CON

  Man made Global Warming? ... Yes and Man-Bear-Pig is...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  Man made Global Warming? Yes and Man-Bear-Pig is real, Al Gore told me so.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.69

    climate: 11.37

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 9.16

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)

    real: 4.16

    premises: 4.02 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.54)

    sourceText: 0.14 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 0.77)
• CON

  The same can be said of yellow fever[4]. ......

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

  A Note: My arguments, which I started constructing before my opponent posted his round, have been based on the assumption that global warming is happening. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, I’ll argue that in Round 3, and it may be my main thrust of that round. I’d like to begin by noting that this debate doesn’t really hinge that much on who, or what, is causing global warming. C1: Public Health Many disease-carrying organisms can live only in areas with specific temperatures. For example, dengue fever is spread by (primarily) the mosquito Aedes aegypti, and lower temperatures limit disease transmission—this is because freezing temperatures kill overwinter larvae and eggs, size is reduced in warmer regions (making them have to feed more frequently to develop their eggs), and shorter incupation period for the virus (dengue type-2 has a period of twelve days at 30 C, but only has a period of seven days at 32-35 C).[1] All of these mean that warming temperatures would cause a significant increase in disease transmission. Dengue fever has no vaccine against it, and can be dangerous to certain groups (for instance, young children).[2] As many people in the South are uninsured[3], and the fever would be expanding its range into the South, we can reasonably conclude that dengue fever would cause significant problems due to global warming. The same can be said of yellow fever[4]. Heat waves also pose a danger. Despite the fact that cold snaps might be reduced in frequency, the evidence indicates it won’t make up for increased deaths due to heat waves[5]. In part this is because extreme heat behaves differently than extreme cold, because it is more difficult to adapt to extreme heat. C2: Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise could potentially be very dangerous. Aside from the fact that nations like Tuvalu are at risk of partially submerging[6], there is a general risk of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world being displaced by sea level rise[7]. C3: Oceanic Acidification: As carbon dioxide levels rise, the ocean will absorb carbon dioxide. This in turn will acidify the ocean, which will cause organisms that use calcium carbonate to build their shells to have problems doing so[8]. Sea stars also have severe impacts inflicted on them (a drop of pH of .2 to .4 causes only .1% of a species of temperature brittle star larva to survive), as would squid (including commercially important species)[9]. Aside from the harmful effects on sea life (since we aren’t only talking about humans here), this damages coral reefs, and coral reefs are a useful source of tourist-related revenue[10]. Ergo we can reasonably conclude that ocean acidification will harm the economy of some areas. C4: Cloud Forests: Mountains have climates that vary based on elevation. For instance, the bottom might be forest, and the top might be an icecap. Cloud forests follow this pattern; the temperature depends on elevation. Plant and animal species in cloud forests rely on specific temperatures and humidity levels. In fact, the cloud forests of Costa Rica and the Andes have been rising over time—as the climate warms, the preferable temperature area moves upwards, resulting in the preferable elevation moving upwards. As a result, species have to move upwards—plants, for example, will have to move an average of 2600 feet to remain in equilibrium with climate, and they’ll have to do that by 2100 (based on 2006 statistics). In the Monteverde cloud forest, this may be already happening. Dry seasons are longer (since the mid-1070s) and this has coincided with some local extinctions (a few amphibian species, for instance)[11][12]. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980310081157.htm www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever#Predisposition www.huffington.post.com/2012/08/30/states-uninsured-residents_n_1844346.html http://www.decvar.org...... http://oem.bmj.com...... http://www.skepticalscience.com...... http://econ.worldbank.org...... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... http://www.scientificamerican.com...... http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...... http://news.stanford.edu...... http://www.smithsonianmag.com......

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.58

    climate: 15.35

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.98 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.03)

    change: 9.13

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.88)
• CON

  There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global...

  Show full argument

  Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

  Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point. "CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise" There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics. Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise" All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Climate-Change-is-a-problem-and-needs-to-be-addressed./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.37

    climate: 16.92

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 7.71 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.61)

    sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.98)

    change: 7.24

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.59)
• CON

  In round two I will make my main argument in detail. ......

  Show full argument

  Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

  I will now make a brief summary of my argument for round one. In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic climate change has a 97% scientific consensus, Is an existential threat, And the main driver is co2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels. I want to thank the instigator for this debate.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-and-global-warming-are-both-total-nonsense-and-drivel-concepts./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.35

    climate: 14.52

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 6.62 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.38)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 9.69

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)
• CON

  This is simply not the case, And this would discount any...

  Show full argument

  The climate is not "a changing".

  A couple interesting statements Cumulative sea level, According to the EPA, Has risen 8 inches since 1880. This is a primary indicator of climate change, Whether it’s caused by anthropogenic activity is debatable. Smaller low-level islands are being submerged by the rising sea level, And not necessarily by volcanos. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to increase surface temperature, Here an on other planets. Response to my opponent He stated, Among other things, Data gathered from islands or areas near volcanos or the ring of fire is invalid. This is simply not the case, And this would discount any data gathered from the pacific rim including his own reference. On the logarithmic effect of Carbon Dioxide Our production of CO2 has been increasing exponentially, With a linear effect on temperature. So, While the impact of CO2 lessens after a certain point we will continue the linear increase of mean global temperatures due to our proportionally increased CO2 production (assuming nothing changes). On Antarctica Antarctica is melting, That much should be apparent. According to some estimates, The ice is melting six times faster than it did 40 years ago. When ice melts it briefly cools around it’s surroundings, Think about an icecube in a cup of water. This means Antarctica’s temperature will not necessarily be consistent with the rest of the world, And will in some cases get sporadically colder as large chunks of ice melt. So, With my opponents theory, He himself has provided evidence for climate change. If the earth relies upon Antarctica for cooling, And Antarctica is melting, Then global warming is causing climate change.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.33

    climate: 19.91

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 7.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 4.18

    premises: 3.81 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.48)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
• CON

  First I’d like to note that Tuvalu has an average...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

  Right, last round my sources had a problem, but I’ve reposted them in the comments section. I thank my opponent for the fantastic debate, and may the best arguments win. C1: Public Health First, I’d like to note that Pro hasn’t addressed my points about dengue fever or yellow fever. To argue that infections decrease in warming periods misses the fact that over the past century or so we’ve made significant strides in treatments for tropical diseases such as malaria, as well as in fighting mosquito outbreaks[cite]. My argument is that all things being equal, an increase in temperature results in an increase in the spread of mosquito-born diseases. The fact that malaria can survive outside of the tropics is rather incidental to whether or not it is more virulent in the tropics. Pro concludes that since malaria rates have decreased over time, and it has happened outside the tropics, malaria would not be affected by global warming. The problem with this is that malaria rates (and pretty much every other tropical disease rate) responds to whatever’s forcing it, just like climate. Keep your temperature steady and leave standing water everywhere and you get more malaria. Kill mosquitos and keep everything else constant and malaria rates drop. We know that malaria is more virulent in warmer areas[1]. Therefore, as the world warms, we either are faced with an increase in malaria cases or have to expand our public health infrastructure to prevent them from occurring in the first place. The first can result in an increase in deaths, the second would have to be very well planned to avoid all deaths and would still result in economic damages. Ergo, we can conclude that a warming world presents risk. As far as heat deaths, this data may be true for the UK and Germany, but it is not necessarily true universally. Many low-income areas are in hot areas rather than cold ones, so quite conceivably that could cause there to still be a net increase in fatalities. C2: Sea Level Rise I don’t argue for an apocalypse where the ocean rises twenty feet. First I’d like to note that Tuvalu has an average elevation of about six feet above sea level. The highest point is fifteen feet[2]. So it doesn’t necessarily take much to cause damage. Also, there are waves, and tides, so even if a given area would still be above average sea level, that doesn’t mean it won’t get water damage. Secondly, sea level rise isn’t going to be constant everywhere. This is due to a variety of factors, such as the gravitational pull of the Earth being slightly different in different locations, temperature variations, and tectonic plates[3]. Unfortunately for Tuvalu, it sits in what is probably the most unfortunate location a bunch of low-level coral atolls could[4]. Sea level in Tuvalu rises about three times as fast as in other locations[5]. About 2.8 inches could matter quite a bit for an island that’s about six feet above sea level when one accounts for the fact that for them it could quite possibly be more in the range of 8 inches. This same reasoning can be applied to other locations. Brazil is close to an area that has a higher sea level[6]. As to Pro’s claim that sea level is falling, the only thing that his source says that supports that is that the level fell slightly in one specific area in Western Canada, by .5 mm. That is hardly a global sea level drop, and satellite data confirms that sea level is rising[7]. C3: Ocean Acidification That same paper cited concedes that calcification would be adversely impacted. As calcifying organisms are an essential part of the food chain, this doesn’t do much to dismiss my claim that ocean acidification poses a risk. In relation to the claim that increased carbon dioxide could be beneficial to shells, experiments with increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in seawater where shells are growing refute that. Shell dissolution is far more affected than shell calcification[8], in any event. While it’s true that pH isn’t fixed in the ocean, that doesn’t mean that shifting the whole range of pH values downwards, towards the more acidic end of the scale, would necessarily be acceptable. If I’m adapted to survive climates of 10-20 degrees Celsius, and it shifts upwards two or three degrees, I’m experiencing significant environmental stress. Since a drop in pH of one (say, from four to three) is a tenfold increase, since pH is a logarithmic scale, the problem with pH is even bigger. C4: Cloud Forests It’s true that Lawton’s paper shows that deforestation is having a significant effect on the cloud forests. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that global warming has no effect. Modeling has demonstrated that increases in carbon dioxide would indeed affect the cloud forests[9]. Obviously deforestation has an effect to, as does general land use, but it can’t be gathered from the fact that damage to the cloud forests is caused by multiple factors that global warming has no effect. It is true that precipitation, in some regions, increases due to global warming. And it’s true that worse droughts have happened in the past. However, I must ask my opponent: Would you prefer a severe drought that is less severe than a massive drought that caused widespread damage, or would you prefer no drought at all? As Pro’s own source points out, droughts that are accompanied by warmer temperatures impact the environment more. Furthermore, global warming alters air circulation patterns, causing the distribution of moisture to change[11]. Even if all else remains equal, certain parts are going to get drier and other parts will get wetter--which has the potential for negative consequences, as noted in my source. For instance, recent droughts in the Sahel are expected to increase in severity due to global warming. Conclusion: I’ve demonstrated that the evidence points towards global warming not being due to the Sun—while I haven’t demonstrated that humans caused global warming, I don’t really need to. Given that the equations that are the current scientific consensus about how to predict warming match up with real observations, we can reasonably conclude that they are correct. Meanwhile, I’ve shown that any economic or health benefits from a warming world would be far outweighed by the costs—ocean acidification, sea level rise, loss of cloud forests, increase in heat stroke deaths, and spread of several virulent diseases. books.google.com/books?id=FhfuV22JZ_sC&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.geo.umass.edu... http://uanews.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.27

    climate: 13.13

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 1.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.03)

    change: 10.08

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.88)

    real: 1.06

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.10 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 0.54)
• CON

  The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  First off, we need to define "Climate Change". We do this because it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of "Climate Change". For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools. It has been happening since the beginning of the Earth, and Scientists are currently studying it via the geological record in both Ice Cores and in Earth Coring samples. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the "scientific theory" that HUMANS are causing the Climate to Change. Usually blamed on the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "Global Warming" as opposed to "Global Cooling" are way too ambiguous of phrases for this discussion and should not be used. I will break this up into 3 separate segments because I see it has 3 features, they are related, but they all play their part : Segment One: Climate Change: Climate Change, as opposed to Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a natural process, and includes both increases and decreases in temperature. According to the Geologic Record, from what we know from the Ice Cores and Sediment Cores, we are currently in a cool period. The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c. The current, short term, average temperature is only about 14c. The maximum estimated temperatures are up around 25c and the Minimum around 10c. The simple conclusion from just those basic facts is we are generally cooler than what is "normal" for our planet. Therefore what we consider "warming" is simply just a "return to normal". Any "hype" about "the end of the world" doesn't even begin to be relevant until we start to clime over 18c, because the Earth was still active and very much alive with temperatures as high as 25c. The Earth also has its own ideas when it comes to warming and CO2. For much of the Earth's history, CO2 level have been much higher (a mean of about 3500 ppm) than they are now, with a high of about 7000 ppm and a low of about 180 ppm. Interestingly, the CDC says the "warning" level for CO2 is 5000 ppm. For Humans, CO2 becomes dangerous (asphyxiation) at 30,000 - 100,000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not clear and we have scientists arguing if increases in CO2 precede warming periods, or if the increase is caused by the warming period. In either case, one thing is clear, even at 7000 ppm, both humans and plants would survive. It is estimated that the Optimal concentration for CO2 for plant growth is between 1500 and 2500 ppm, well below the CDC's limits. The net effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is the increase of biomass (green plant-life) on the planet. More biomass equals more O2. The current measurement of CO2 is about 380 ppm. The current levels of CO2 are about on par with what existed before the 1820s. The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally high, nor are they odd, out of the ordinary, or even dangerous in any way. The opposite is true, however, that the CO2 levels appear to be normalizing and benefiting biomass which is a benefit, not a detriment. We have now established a baseline. The average Temperatures are up around 18c, and the CO2 level around 3500 ppm. This would appear to be "normal" for the Earth, even if it doesn't seem "normal" from our current point of view. Now, I would like to look at some "evidences" of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and real Climate Change: 1) Warming has caused more and more severe hurricanes. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. http://news.heartland.org... 2) Warming has caused more and more severe wildfires. Fact is, the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned have remained consistent for at least the past 13 years. I have included the graph in the comments section, and this is where I got the information: http://www.nifc.gov... 3) Arctic ice is melting. There was a 29% increase in arctic ice this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4) Antarctic ice is melting. Antarctic ice is also increasing, hitting a 35 year high this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5) Polar bears are dying off. Actually, their population is increasing. Based on some estimates, by 4200 bears since 2001. http://www.npr.org... 6) Human generated CO2 has caused an increase in global temperatures. Temperatures have stayed constant over the last 17 years. http://www.forbes.com... 7) Sea Level is increasing rapidly. Over the past 150 years, there has been no drastic, alarming, or abnormal increase in sea level. One site, SkepticalScience, shows a graph from 1880 to now. Sea Levels are about the same now as they were then. It appears, from the graph, that it is cyclical. The following is from an expert in the field: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org... The only conclusion, therefore, is Climate Change is a natural process and does not appear to be abnormally affected by people. Segment Two: Politics: The Politics of Climate Change, like anything in politics, is all about money. First I would like to mention a warning signs of a "political agenda", like "science by consensus". One of the first things we heard from the IPCC and other AGW activists is how "scientists are in consensus" and "all the evidence suggests". Any science minded person knows this isn't true in ANY scientific field. For every scientist FOR something, there is one AGAINST it, and another one who has his own theory. For instance, we have "the big bangers" and the "black holers" when it comes to the origin of our universe... there are those in the scientific community who question gravity... and in climate science, there are all kinds of voices, some for and yes, some against. SCIENCE is not something done by CONSENSUS, but by application of the Scientific Theory. Another warning sign is when any bit of science becomes a political talking point. Politicians are notorious for conflating issues; in the '70s is was "Global Cooling" and today "Global Warming". Neither of which are true; its all just Climate Change. Further evidence of a "political agenda" when it comes to Science is developing and passing legislation to try to alter nature. Just because you pass a law that forbids the sun from rising, doesn't mean the sun won't rise. Second, I must point out "bad science", to go along with the "political agenda": Mistakes: http://www.newscientist.com... (8 other sources in comments) Manipulations: http://www.guardian.co.uk... Lies: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.brutallyhonest.org... Third, after seeing the political agenda, we must ask "who is making money on this?" When Al Gore came up with the idea of "trading carbon credits", financial experts had their hair set on fire. They recognized the beginnings of a ponzi scheme. Carbon trading is a Billion (if not Trillion) dollar scheme. Private individuals and Governments stand to make a fortune. http://www.newsbusters.org... http://www.marketwired.com... Luckily, some are realizing the fraud: http://www.cfact.org... Segment Three: Alternative Theories: Another warning sign is the complete lack of alternate theories to either compliment or detract from the supposed consensus, especially from those sources that HAVE both points of view, like NASA. Below are several links discussing another plausible cause of "Climate Change"; Solar activity: http://www.americanthinker.com... (12 other sources in comments) As you can see, it isn't something to ignore, and it calls into question the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. I have also included some more information from a variety of sources that talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem: http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://www.co2science.org... http://www.nature.com... http://blogs.nature.com... We should also understand that "weather" and "climate" are different things. Weather, for instance, can be influenced by people: http://www.agu.org... http://www.nature.com... http://www.nature.com... You asked for some scientists that don't support AGW, well, here is a partial list of 31,000: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com... NONE of this is to say that I don't believe we should be responsible stewards of our Earthly home. I believe in Recycling, conservation, etc. I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon. NOTE: due to the 10,000 character limit, I have placed many of my links to sources in the comments section.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-denial-is-unusual-in-the-scientific-community/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 24.09

    climate: 18.38

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.65)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 4.48

    premises: 4.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.59)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)

    real: 1.23

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.27 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.47)
• CON

  Citing that there was a point in history where things...

  Show full argument

  Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

  Warming is beneficial Whether warming is beneficial or not is irrelevant. The issue of Global Climate Change (here-in referred to as "GCC") is not simply warming, it is acceleration of warming trends within a short period of time. At one point in Earth's history there were crocodiles in Canada, and at one point the equator was winterous. Whether either of these conditions is "beneficial" is not at issue here; the issue is the acceleration of warming spurred by the release of large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere. "Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down." [http://www.newscientist.com...] During Earth's history, the atmospheric gases present were a direct result of the organisms in the biosphere. These organisms work over extremely long time-periods. Long periods allow for evolution to adjust accordingly to change. Humans obviously are able to use technology to effect rapid change that biodiversity is unable to adapt to. 1a. plants will thrive "For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent." [http://www.newscientist.com...] Just because plants like C02 doesn't mean they are going to thrive when all is considered. Pro states: "Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively starved." I find this very hard to believe. Of all the forests and fields of the world that are lush with vegetation, Pro would have us believe that they are actually starving for C02. Sure, we feed certain plants extra C02 in greenhouses, we keep them extra warm and humid, and we pump excess nutrients into their roots - that doesn't mean all of Earth's plants are too cold, undernourished, dry, and C02 starved. And last I checked, everything In nature is evolved perfectly into its surroundings. Citing that there was a point in history where things were different doesn't meant that things stopped evolving back then. 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Pro states: "many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling" Perhaps Pro doesn't get out of the house much. We are experiencing one of the most bizarre and extreme summer heat waves on record, with thousands of records being broken and re-broken as we speak. This page outlines many of them, which are far too numerous for me to include in an 8,000 character post: [http://www.washingtonpost.com...] Pro gives sources saying that the Earth is cooling over the last ten years. At best, he's picked a small fluctuation at a convenient interval to make his assertation. At worst, he's picked a completely biased website that doesn't reflect the state of modern science at all. It appears that both of these assumptions are correct. His site claims it's getting its information from NASA, but this is what NASA has to say (notice my link is actually NASA): http://www.giss.nasa.gov... I'll let the concluding paragraph do the talking: "If we follow a 'business-as-usual' course, Hansen predicts, then at the end of the twenty-first century we will find a planet that is 2-3°C warmer than today, which is a temperature Earth hasn't experienced since the middle Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when sea level was roughly 25 meters higher than it is today." 25 meters > 9 inches. Perhaps the land-mass of the Earth was different back then, but I doubt that could account for the entire discrepency between the numbers NASA gave us versus Pro's claim. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. Just because China and the developing world are going to lag behind us in cutting fossil fuel usage doesn't mean we should give up the effort. In fact, the reason why China et al. do not put any real attempts into cutting C02 is because they will be damned if they are going to cut emissions while we refrain. People in other countries have a different perspective than we do; they see America as the richest, most powerful country in the world. They see us, with 5% of the population, creating 40% of the world's waste [http://www.recycling-revolution.com...]. So it is more responsible to assert that we are one of the top-producers of C02, instead of saying "well China is 5% ahead of us," isn't it? I mean, this is similar logic to a mis-behaving child who is trashing the living room and insists on continuing simply because another sibling is slightly ahead in total damage. If the U.S. continues to decrease its C02 emissions, then China et al. will be accentuated more as the true roots of the problem. If we refrain from cutting emissions, then they will continue to hide behind our lack of effort and no progress will be made because China also has a conservative element that will use our inaction to strengthen their own denial of culpability. 4. Too expensive I reject Pro's numbers based on the fact that the resolution merely states that GCC should be a "major factor" in our energy policy. It doesn't say that we need to tear down every power plant overnight. The spirit of this debate is whether or not GCC is a serious consideration; we don't have the time or space to debate specific plans of action regarding how to address the problem. It is sufficient for me to assert that GCC should significantly affect our policymaking (based on whether or not ut is bunk science), not that it necessarily must override every economic decision we have. I have only one contention that I would like addressed: 5. The world's scientific community agrees that GCC is real and is imminently dangerous The national scientific academies from all these countries have not only acknowledged GCC as a real threat, but have explicitly urged that all countries reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to combat it: Australia Belgium Brazil Cameroon Royal Society of Canada the Caribbean China France Ghana Germany Indonesia Ireland Italy India Japan Kenya Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nigeria New Zealand Russia Senegal South Africa Sudan Sweden Tanzania Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Zambia Zimbabwe For a complete list of the scientific institutions that support GCC theory reference this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org...] There are too many to count reliably, but I saw about 70 on the list. I'm sure Pro will point out that the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation have NOT signed on, but I'm hoping that these notable absences will not distract too much. The link goes on to inform: "Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases." So, after 30+ of the world's top national scientific academies and 70+ of the world's foremost scientific institutions formally endorsed GCC as a real, anthropologically-induced threat, Pro's concerns occupy nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists, as well as a handfull of purely politically-motivated right-wing institutions who put out data with the sole purpose of creating a doubt in the public eye that GCC is real enough to worry about, while 99% of the scientists involved have no doubts whatsoever that it is real.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-climate-change-should-not-be-a-major-factor-in-US-energy-policy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.92

    climate: 11.84

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.96 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)

    change: 8.62

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 2.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.91)

    real: 3.46

    premises: 3.14 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.75)
• CON

  You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. ... In the...

  Show full argument

  The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

  You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. You have to choose specific technologies and specific firms that make those technologies to invest in, and we all know how the government picks its investments. https://en.wikipedia.org... The connected will get the money, rather than who has the best idea. In the private sector, if your company can make more money, you'll find investors. So I say stop subsidizing oil, let a few more years go by, alternative energy will already be cheaper without Uncle Sam spending any of his money, and climate change will effectively resolve itself.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-needs-to-do-much-more-to-combat-climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.77

    climate: 14.06

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 6.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.31)

    sourceText: 1.15 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.93)

    change: 9.47

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
• CON

  Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  I accept most of the rules of your debate, but do not accept the character limit. Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't change the character limit to 10,000 within a half hour despite being online, I will use a google docs if I go over 8,000 characters, but will not go over 10,000 characters. You may do the same if you go over 8,000, but be sure not to go over 10,000 characters. Do you agree to this? If not, I'll just forfeit the debate. Definitions: Anthropogenic: "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature"[1] I felt the definition of that word may be necessary since it's a large word that many people may not have heard of before, so I defined it for the benefit of the voters. Sources: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.72

    climate: 11.44

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 11.95

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)