args

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent breaks their own rules by not rebutting my argument. Therefore it is an automatic win for the Con as my opponent can decide when they want to break the rules or not, leaving me at an unfair disadvantage. Instead of following their own rules and rebutting my claims, my opponent decides to strengthen their argument. This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too. It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the Instead of following their own rules and rebutting my claims, my opponent decides to strengthen their argument. This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too. It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too. It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the climate change threat is either nonexistent or being exaggerated. In conclusion, while I agree that rapid climate change poses a threat, I believe that this threat is being exaggerated and that humanity does not have to worry about extreme heat or any other natural disaster for much longer because once the world enters a natural cooling period all of this will be forgotten.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Thanks for accepting. By the way, I really like your profile picture. ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pope Francis's is more than welcome to voice his opinion on this topic, but his opinion is just as good as yours and mine. 2. The fact that we're having a debate on whether Climate Change is even real or not raises serious questions about its existence. 4. The Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

CO2 has increased by 54% in past 17 years with no global warming, and CO2 theory cannot explain why NASA data, which I cited in [6], shows there has been no global warming for 17 years. Here is the graph from [6]: Pro argued that the average temperature for each decade has increased for each of the last three decades. That does not contract the fact of there being no global warming for 17 years. Suppose the temperature anomalies were scaled to be 1 in 1980, 2 in 1990, 3 in 2000, and 3 in 2010. Then the decade averages would be 1.5, 2.5, and 3 respectively, with a higher decade average despite no increase in the 2000s. The post-2010 data, which Pro did not consider, also shows no temperature increase. Temperatures rose sharply in the 1990s, so the average for the decade is about half way between the low at the start of the decade and the high at the end. There is no increase from the end of the 90s to the present, so saying the average for 2001 through 2010 is higher than the 90s only says that 90s were warmer at the end of the decade than the beginning. My primary reference for the claim that that IPCC models cannot explain the 17 year lack of global warming is Tinsdale's book “Climate Models Fail” [7]. Tinsdale provides a book length comparison of IPCC model results showing that what actually happened in climate was outside of the error band of model predictions. Tinsdale correctly references Von Storch, but I provided the wrong link, for which I apologize. The Von Storch paper cited by Tinsdale is online, but it can only be accessed with academia.edu membership [17. http://www.academia.edu...] Storch says “we find that the continued stagnation in global warming, from 1998 to 2012, is inconsistent with model predictions, even at the 2% confidence level.” Tinsdale also referenced the Mauritsen paper, which I linked in [7]. Like Von Storch, it shows that no reasonable tweak in the IPCC models can bring then into agreement with what actually happened. If CO2 dominated climate in the 20th century, then temperature should have risen monotonically through the century. If fact, there was a sharp decline at the beginning of the century and long gradual decline from about the 40s through the 60s. The general trend is upwards, but a general upward trend is what we would expect if sunspots dominated climate. I presented the sunspot graph previously, but here is a nicer rendition [18. http://www.paulmacrae.com...] Temperature is closely following sunspot activity, but not CO2, through 2000 The continuation, below, shows the pause in global warming post-2000 is consistent with the sunspot cycle having peaked. [19. http://wattsupwiththat.com...] The 17 year pause in global warming is causing great consternation among scientists who previously believed CO2 predominated. A news report by Voosen summarizes the widespread recognition among scientists that the models are not working, and that some major factors are missing, although among CO2 advocates, there is no agreement among CO2 theorists as to what is wrong. [20. http://www.eenews.net...] Pro's [5] shows that natural forcing of climate is only a minor part of the model predictions. However, Pro's figure shows is that the model predictions are completely wrong. Temperature was supposed to rise sharply after 2000, as the figure shows, but it did not. Models proved wrong cannot be relied upon for future predictions. As Voosen documents, in the IPCC models, sunspots are only modeled as having a direct irradiance effect, and that effect is negligible for the 20th century through the present. Something else is happening that gives sunspots a much greater influence on climate. Total sea ice is at a high Pro's initial contention was that vanishing Arctic sea ice proves that CO2 dominates climate. That's wrong on two counts. Correlation does not prove causation. Also, global warming is global, so it cannot be that Arctic ice measures warming but Antarctic ice does not. In the last round, Pro changed his position and argued that total ice is important and not sea ice. But total ice has been decreasing since the early 1800s, well before any claim of anthropogenic warming. [21. http://www.davidarchibald.info...] Total ice shrinking doesn't say anything about the cause. Pro claimed that melting land ice in Antarctica caused the increase in sea ice. That's impossible, because 99.9% of Antarctica has never gotten warm enough for ice to melt. There is a tiny peninsula that goes far enough north to occasionally have some melting, but that's negligible. Future CO2 levels are unknown Pro speculates that once there is any warming from anthropogenic CO2 it will take 10,000 years or even millions of years to correct. Pro agrees that warming causes the release of CO2 from the oceans. That does not address the issue of what future CO2 levels will be. It only says that if there is warming from some cause, that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be higher, after some delay, than if CO2 were not released from the ocean. We know it is not the case that warming causes a runaway of temperature due to the release of CO2 causing further warming. The data by Rasmussen [15] shows that CO2 goes up and down following temperature with a lag of a few hundred years, and that is true when either temperatures or CO2 levels are higher than present. It cannot matter whether there was one degree of warming due to sunspots or due to anthropogenic CO2, if any warming were to cause a CO2 induced runaway of temperature, it would have shown up in the temperature and CO2 variation of the past 250,000 years, and it has not happened. All of the IPCC models assume that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are dominated by a continuing exponential rise in anthropogenic CO2. But fossils fuels are unquestionable being exhausted, so it is impossible for CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels to continue to rise exponentially. The only question is when anthropogenic CO2 will fall below the assumed exponential increase. Prof. David Archibald, an expert on fossil fuel reserves claims, “At best, we might get to about 600 ppm ...” [21. p.91] As fossil fuels become scarce the price will rise, which will lead to the use of alternatives like nuclear power, which is present only marginally more expensive than fossil fuels. But let's suppose that the 600 ppm level is reached at the end of the century. That's a 56% increase in CO2. But the 54% increase in CO2 in the past 17 years produced no net increase in global temperature. Because scientists agree CO2 warming is logarithmic, the same percentage increase should produce the same amount of warming. The CO2 warming of the past 17 years was canceled by natural phenomena not in the climate models, so Pro's claim that the climate problem is solved is false. Is 600 ppm total CO2 is the correct number? I don't, and no one knows for sure. The upper limits and the future rates of CO2 production are major unknowns that make it impossible for Pro to meet his burden of proof. Climate prediction based upon solar activity The IPCC model projections of climate depend upon the CO2 effect on warming being multiliplied by a positive factor of two or more by secondary effects, such as the warming increasing water vapor in the atmosphere. Archibald [21. p 1] summarizes: The real world evidence says the opposite. In late 2007, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a paper analyzing data from the Aqua satellite. Based on the response of tropical clouds, Dr. Spencer demonstrated that the feedback is negative. He calculates a 0.5°C warming for a doubling of the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level. Global warming, as caused by carbon dioxide, is real but it is also minuscule, and will be lost in the noise of the climate system.

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

Humans do not cause CLIMATE CHANGE, cutting grass with non renewable resources does. Humans do not cause climate change, refusing to live closer to your choice of work does. Humans do not cause climate change, planes burning jet fuel as an alternative to slower flights does. Humans do not cause climate change, neglecting to grow trees in concrete jungles does. HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems. like not growing food, flat ground, and damned house pets. I'mma smoke ur turkey. SO it's ur shot. Lay out ur case. you can argue with mine later.

Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

No one is denying that climate change is upon us. The present effects of global warming and other forms of climate change are well documented. As we see it, the people of the world have two choices: --shore up our defenses against the worst effects of climate change and hope that we won"t eventually be incapable of coping with the rising seas, floods, droughts, disease, etc. that are even now threatening communities on every continent, or --focus our energies and resources on preventing further climate change damage to mitigate the impact on humanity and planet. Given the ominous fact that there is nothing that can be done to immediately halt and reverse the effects of climate change, humans need to take the long view. Where will we be in 50 or 100 years if we fail to take steps now to prevent even greater climate change? The effects we are feeling now are so threatening to human health and the ecosystems we depend upon that it is inconceivable we could survive many generations at the current rate of damage. The alternative to real and concerted prevention of further climate change, is to accept a future in which the people of Earth who are not killed by heat waves, mosquito-born diseases, floods, famines and the other inevitable effects of global warming find themselves fighting over the few verdant patches of land high enough to escape seas that have risen [find stat] feet once the polar ice caps have melted completely. The preparation position is a fatalistic one. It accepts the eventual demise of humankind. The only viable position is the prevention of further climate change in hopes of reestablishing ecological balance in the world. No amount of raising levees, recycling water, or distributing mosquito nets will be sufficient over time to save our race and the world from the climate change damage we have put in motion. Given a choice between preparing for the worst, and attempting to prevent the worst--humanity"s best hope lies in prevention. We must do everything we can, starting now, to halt the shameful dependence on fossil fuels, the destruction of tropical rainforests, and pumping of hydrocarbons into the air.

Anthropogenic global climate change.

I have to start this final round off with thanking who's made this argument much easier. Had then President-Elect Trump not terrified climate change scientists into archiving the data that they had kept away from the public this final round wouldn't be as climactic[16]. I'm surprised that my opponent didn't use the time to incorporate changes that were starting to come out just as I was wrapping up the previous round. On February 4th retired NOAA Scientist Dr. John Bates came forward damning NOAA for it's failure to Archive data like study used to refute the 'pause' argument for the Paris Agreement[19]. By the 5th it made it to the House Science Committee[18]. Thomas Karl has since admitted to failing archive the information before publication, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine, Jeremy Berg, where the study was published has said: "Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations. We will consider our options. It could include retracting that paper." [17] How can a study be published as Peer Reviewed when the study was never archived before publication so that fellow NOAA scientists or the public could review it? Blind Faith is you asking someone to believe you, and not providing a way to verify it. My opponent seems to be under the misconception that Figure 4 supports his argument. He better hope that Figure 4 is wrong because the high temperature in 2012 is that same as the high temperature in 1936. The clear trend from 1936 to 1980, or possible 1996, would mean that as we increased CO2 temperature dropped, but then reversed course after that. That would be a contradiction and refute the CO2 argument. Without the weighting, Figure 4 doesn't say anything for either argument. It's odd for my opponent to accuse me of cherry picking the evaporation data in his defense, but not in his rebuttal of my argument. Perhaps he knows he failed to refute my claim, and realized that data proves my claim beyond all doubt. In his mind, it has to be a fallacy, and he just happened to pick Cherry Picking without proof of Cherry Picking. In spite of the referenced source the GHCN dataset from NOAA. In spite of the publicly available source code. In spite of the Evaporation Data labeled, All Station, and Year Round stations he insists I must be cherry picking data. The only reason for the two sets is that some stations are seasonal resulting in some confusing output in the later years of the graph. Both are still in sync before 2005. Even given that I openly admitted that the Evaporation Set alone might just be too small since we only measure evaporation near lakes and reservoirs. That's why Figure 2 exists which collaborates the data in the evaporation data. He refuses to attack the GHCN dataset because doing so would throughout his entire argument since NOAA bases all their climate change argument on it. He refuses to attack the methodology because it is sound. He is left only with a Cherry Picked, false, unsubstantiated claim of Cherry Picking. Where is a dataset more inclusive than the GHCN? Where is his counter evidence showing what data I missed? In the ultimate sense of irony, my opponent and I already agree. He is just drowning in cognitive dissonance making him unwilling to look at the data for himself. Man-Made Global Warming is the only Man-Made Myth here today. Thank you, and I urge you to vote and share this debate. [16] http://www.cnn.com... [17] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [18] https://science.house.gov... [19] https://judithcurry.com...

developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

I will be using the social contract where a country only has an obligation to its self "The EPA Has been funded highly in the last 10 years but has come up with little to no change to the environment what so ever" 2010 BBC Article I stand in firm negation on the resolution, Resolved: Devloped Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. My case is backed by two contentions: Developed countries already fund unsuccessful environmental programs Contention 2: There are other issues that are a higher priority to developed. On to my first contention, According to the Library of congress the EPA gets an annual budget of eight billion dollars a year, and rarely if ever come up with successful solutions to pollution or climate change. The BBC has reported multiple time of the success rate of the Epa and The british environmental conservation agency stating that both programs are failures and taxpayers should not be paying for them. As I have shown, developed countries have Environmental programs, countries like the USA, Britain , Canada, Australia, France,Spain and Portugal all have developed environmental programs, so countries have already accomplished the resolution. Also according to the British Environmental Conservation agency, climate change is only studied 3 months out of the 12 as stated by professor Martin Anthony of Cambridge university " what is the point of studying climate climate change if there is no way to control it. So if there is no way to control climate change why should developed countries make it a priority. This brings me to my next contention: Developed Countries have higher priorities. NASA States that climate change is a natural occurrence and as Professor martin Anthony of Cambridge university stated that there is no way to control climate change. Why should climate change be so high on the agenda? It shouldn"t, so the money used to fund these environmental agency"s in developed country"s can be used elsewhere, such as war effort, poverty and healthcare, the eight billion dollars that goes to the EPA can be used to minimize poverty, fund wars and fund healthcare. Climate change should not be a high priority in today agenda. In conclusion I have proven that Developed country"s already have funded programs that involved in environmental study and that climate change is not a priority to developed countries. With that I urge a vote in negation on the resolution. Thank you