args

Obama strikes climate change deal with China

Obama, Xi Jinping seek to foster global agreement on climate change

Climate change is a fraud

Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.

What is your opinion on climate change

Before I start my argument, I want to say that I don't deny climate change, I just disagree with some points made by people like Deeznutsisreal. Some research shows (https://climate.nasa.gov...) that our greenhouse gas emissions could be exacerbated by solar irradiance. The earth also goes through natural warming phases (https://www.theccc.org.uk...) and that could make what we are producing worse. In Round 2, I hope to see Deeznutsisreal's sources and better grammar.

Dealing with climate change – regulations versus market methods

We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Rebuttals First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist. Opponent's 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 This is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3] "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2] From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically. Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record Argument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4] s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; /> Argument 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 Antarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3] "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence." "Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass." As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5] 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases This is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3] ""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first. Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. " show picture of graph if possible." [6][7] Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures. Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority. Sources 2. https://www.epa.gov... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://grist.org... 5. http://grist.org... 6. http://grist.org... 7. http://www.grida.no...

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change. I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises. 2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later). 3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null. II. Why recycling helps the environment. 1. To begin with, I will say that trees from naturally growing forests are important to the climate whereas those made by companies are not as beneficial. A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper. B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown to help manage carbon dioxide, but to be made into paper. Trees that have been planted otherwise contribute more to the environment. 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. 3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper. C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does.

Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

As I have stated; developed countries can fix climate change, they are responsible for climate change, and they MUST fix climate change.

Climate Change is caused by Humans

Point 1- There is an undeniable spike in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. To deny this is just simply foolish.In a matter of roughly 50-60 years, Co2 levels have spiked from 280 parts per million to over 400. To put that into perspective, in the past 800,000 years, Co2 levels have fluctuated between 180 ppm to 280 ppm. A change of 100 ppm would usually take 5,000-20,000 years, however, the current spike took a mere 120 years. While Co2 levels have certainly been higher than this previously in the history of the Earth, never before has Earth experienced such a rapid spike in Co2, the current increase is 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age [2]. Point 2 - There is a human fingerprint on the carbon that we release. Carbon from different sources has different amounts of neutrons (called isotopes), for example, Carbon from the ocean is "0" (normal) while atmospheric carbon tends to be from -5 to -9 (meaning 5-9 neutrons removed). However, carbon from fossil fuels is an even lighter form of carbon; -20 to -35 [1]. Using this information, scientists can accurately identify the source of carbon that we find in our atmosphere. It is not coincidental that there’s a rapid spike in Co2 while humans are polluting the air with tons upon tons of fossil fuels, the problem with this is, unlike plants and the ocean, factories don’t take Co2 “back in”. The natural cycle balances the Co2 level by constantly adding and removing Co2, while humans are simply just adding Co2 without removing any [3] as shown by this chart. Point 3 - Using computers, scientists have shown that natural factors simply can't account for the changes we have seen. As shown by the following charts, without accounting human activity, these simulations can’t explain the data we have been receiving. Point 4 - Since Co2 is inevitably a greenhouse gas, such a rapid spike in Co2 will cause temperature changes throughout the Earth. These temperature changes can provide a variety of consequences that scientists and the general population have observed; from rising surface temperatures to rising sea levels to the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere shifting up in recent decades. I won't go to the trouble to prove each of what has been observed for this debate is not about whether or not climate change is real, but whether or not it is caused by humans; both Pro and Con agree that climate change is real. In conclusion, scientists have recorded one of the biggest Co2 spikes in Earth history. Using the fingerprints that come with burning fossil fuels, scientists are able to record how much of the Earth's atmospheric carbon comes from the burning of fossil fuels. While the carbon cycle creates more carbon than factories, the carbon cycle is just that... a cycle, meaning it's constantly balancing the concentration of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere. However, factories, cars, and humans as a whole are just adding carbon to the Earth's atmosphere without ever using atmospheric carbon like the carbon cycle does. On top of that, recent computer simulations have shown that in order to get the type of changes we are currently experiencing... human activity has to be included or else the data we get back is not the one we have observed. The absence of human activity in these simulations results in completely wrong data, while the presence of human activity brings back accurate data; meaning human activity plays a large role in the climate of the earth. Since Co2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas and is proven to be directly correlated with temperature (as Co2 goes up so does temperature), a rapid spike in Co2 means rising temperatures across the globe, leading to a variety of consequences that we have recently observed. If not dealt with, these problems can only escalate and cause severe problems/destruction. Links [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://globalwarming-facts.info... [3] https://www.skepticalscience.com...