args

PRO

• PRO

  However not all of it is retrievable. ... But no of...

  Show full argument

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

  Ok first off If you read my post about the Hydrogen economy I am not citing the entire book. I was citing the over estimating of useable oil left in reserves and the political implications. NOT HYDROGEN AS A FUEL SOURCE. No where have I said that hydrogen would be a good source because you are right about its, its too expensive and produces a lot of water vapor. Those studies are just proxy studies and that research fails to account for the massive quantities release into the atmosphere through emissions. Plus no you haven't showed and direct link for any data such as that. Least not in this debate. 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 quatities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossiable to think otherwise. Oh and catalytic converters has now been linked with production of nitrous oxide. Another wonderful greenhouse gas. Plus burn more fuel. Gas prices are already inflated and not due to enviromentalists. Production is tapping out. Our oil reserves are starting to run dry. There is still a lot of oil left. However not all of it is retrievable. Countries are overestimating oil reserves, Hydrogen economy discusses that quite in depth. Yes there have been warming periods and cooling periods. However there are very few that have such a high growth rate in greenhouse gases combined with a high species extinction rate. Well the scientists in the 70s are not totally wrong. When large amounts of heating occurs it changes the climate and weather patterns. This can create another ice age or other adverse climate changes Millions of people are starving right now. We could solve world hunger right now with a small tax and genetically engineered food. However Americans for the most part would most likely whine and complain. Rather we rather waste our money on war and oppression. Don't feed me that crap. Most of those countries can't afford to think of a tractor. Plus they aren't emitting hardly any emissions so it does affect them. We are the ones that are wasting and throwing away tons of resources. WE should pay the price of our self-indulgence. The reason oil prices are so high is because our current government set us up for economic disaster. With the dollar being so highly inflated it raises great concern on the market. Since oil commodities are in dollar amounts they go up with inflation too. On top of this foreign investors who have higher currency then us (the European union) buy this oil because it creates a good hedge fund in the portfolio. Now they have a commodity that has a demand and with more and more purchases will only drive up the price. Plus the oil in the Alaskan refuge is miniscule. It would barely make a dent in gas prices. It would be years before we would see it hit the market in full force. However right now Alberta just found a huge oil reserve. Plus oil will run out before 2020. Or at least the reserves that we currently can access. Plus OPEC has also said they will not increase production. So its not the environmentalist fault. "Climate research is not science it is a political view point". Did you just seriously say that. I mean seriously that is one of the most uneducated things I have ever heard. I suppose then all the research saying that nothing is happening is just a political viewpoint. Yes the climate of Hawaii and its origin must all be a political viewpoint. Are you a scientist? Are you even qualified in the least to make that assumption? Lets just pretend (I'm just asking you to pretend not believe all-right.) that we really are ruining the planet. Lets pretend that we mess it up and we cease to exist as a species. Wouldn't you want to save the very thing that you depend on to survive. If we destroy our planet we are out of luck. Thats it no more. Wouldn't you want to try to do anything to protect the planet for the sake of your own life and if not but for your children's sake. But no of course not. We must burn the wildlife refuges and drill for oil and pillage our earth's pantry until its bear. We are overfishing our oceans, exhausting fields of their soil, destroying ecosystems for sake of greed. Honey Bees our most foremost pollinator are dying and we have no idea why. But no, you say drill for the oil, cut down the forest, we are not citizens of nature but masters of it. Well guess what, we are not masters or conquers we are residents. The real danger is the dire state our planet it in. Environmentalist are fighting for balance. You spew all of this garbage out of your mouth about how environmentalism is evil and is just robbing america blind. Have you ever considered that is might be the other way around?

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

    BM25 score: 23.77

    climate: 14.99

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

    premises: 5.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

    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)

    real: 1.54

    premises: 1.34 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.20 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.09)
• PRO

  This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources. Guide to Voting: I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar. Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic [32]. Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side. Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are "alarmists." This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary. Summary of Sources by Pro: Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive. Summary of Sources by Con: Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the "Solar Radiation" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted. Con's Round 1 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement heartland.org 1 N Y National Interagency Fire Center Organization Established Off Topic Daily Mail 1 (David Rose) N N Washington Post Jason Samenow N Y NPR 1 (Zac Unger) N Y Forbes 1 (Larry Bell) N N Mitosyfraudes.org 1 (Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner) Geodynamics N Newscientist.com 1 (Michael Le Page) N Y The Guardian 1 (Damian Carrington) N Neither The Telegraph 1 (Christopher Booker) N N Brutally Honest N/A N N NewsBusters 1 (Noel Sheppard) N N Market Wired N/A N cfact.org 1 (Marita Noon) N N American Thinker (2007) 1 (D. Bruce Merrifield) Y (Physical Chemistry, Ph. D.) “While it seems likely that solar radiation, rather than human activity, is the "forcing agent" for global warming, the subject surely needs more study.” Whatsupwiththat 1 (David Middleton) N N CO2science.org 1 (Christie Shumway) 4th-grade science project N/A Nature 4 Y (Department of Agriculture; Harvard Planetary Sciences) Y blogs.nature.com Oliver Morton N N/A Journal of Geophysical Research 10+ Y (Forecasting Research and Development; University of Reading; University of Leeds) Y Nature 2 Y (Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen) Y Nature 1 (Olivier Boucher) Y (American Geophysical Union) Y minnesotans for global warming .com Elmer N N Con's Round 2 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement badscience.net 1 (Ben Goldacre) Y (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) Off topic (discusses MMR and autism) businessinsider.com 1 (Dina Spector) N Off topic (discusses religious predictions) Nature 1 (Daniel R. Taub) Y (Biology Department, Southwestern University) Y (CO2 is the independent variable, climate change is acknowledged in introduction) climatecentral.org 1 (Tim Radford) N Neither theresilientearth.com 1 (Doug L. Hoffman) N N Daily Caller 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) Y (American Meteorological Society) N icecap.us 1 (Frank Lansner) No record N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Joannenova.com 1 (JoNova) N N Shrouded in Doubt (blog) 2 (blogger and R. Dale Guthrie) N (blogger) Y (Guthrie, University of Chicago) N & Y (blogger assigns improper headline to Guthrie’s work) Wikipedia Holocene Climate Optimum N/A N Off topic European Space Agency Organization Y (European Space Agency) Off topic (ozone hole) skepticalscience.com 1 (John Cook) Y (University of Queensland) Y Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis 1 (Zhang, J.) Y (University of Washington) Y (ice is declining) polarbearscience.com 1 (Dr. Susan J. Crockford) Y (University of British Columbia) Off topic (discusses Polar Bear population) Daily Mail 1 (Caroline Graham) N N The Hockey Schtick (blog) 1 (HocheySchtick1) N N sciencedaily.com reference to Nature Article 11 Y (Centre for Oceanic Research) Off topic (Oceans absorb CO2, reduces oceanic ph) Nature 10 Y (Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, University of California, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Princeton University, Rutgers University, University of Maine) Y (The observed reductions in ocean productivity during the recent post-1999 warming period provide insight on how future climate change can alter marine food webs) OceanWorld.tamu.edu organization . . . i think so Off topic (feed iron to plankton to increase productivity) wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Bob Tisdale) N N judithcurry.com 1 (Judith Curry) N N Nature 9 Y (Harvard, Columbia, Oregon State, University of Wisconsin, Peking University, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Collège de France) Y (support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age) Con's Round 3 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N wattsupwiththat.com 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given c3headlines.typepad.com N/A Y No interpretations given Con's Round 4 Sources: Organization Authors / Researchers Scientific Accreditation AGW Acknowledgement Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N New York Times (blog) 1 (Andrew C. Revkin) N Neither (discusses whether scientists should have political opinions) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) University of Copenhagen 1 (Gertie Skaarup) Y (University of Copenhagen) Y (What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth’s climate out of balance) Joannenova.com 1 (Joanne Nova) N N wattsupwiththat 1 (Anthony Watts) N N Forbes 1 (James Taylor) N N Environment and Public Works 1 (Marc Morano) N N MSNBC 2 (Ian Johnston, James Lovelock) Y (London School of Hygeine and Tropical Medicine) N The Telegraph 1 (Fritz Vahrenholt) N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N The Globe and Mail 2 (Neil Reynolds, Robert Laughlin) N & Y (Stanford University Physics) N Climate Depot 2 (Judith Curry, Marc Morano) N N Climate Depot 2 (Richard Lindzen, Marc Morano) Y, N N Climate Depot 1 (Marc Morano) N N poleshift.ning.com (blog) 1 N N truthisreason.com (blog) 1 N N http://goo.gl... URL disabled I apologize for the awkwardness of this pasted chart, but I have enjoyed this debate, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it!

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

    BM25 score: 23.72

    climate: 18.12

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

    premises: 7.66 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.60)

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

    change: 3.96

    premises: 3.58 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.39)

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

    real: 1.64

    premises: 1.37 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.52)

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

  Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data...

  Show full argument

  The political science of climate change

  I thank CON for offering his comments this final round. I will do my best to address everything that is relevant, since I have been accused of not doing so. Agenda 21 CON has accused me of not addressing Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a document prepared by the United Nations which offers suggestions on how do develop in a sustainable fashion [1][2]. It is a non-binding report full of policy suggestions of the type the UN frequently puts out [3][4]. Of course, he is correct. I did not address it because it really doesn’t fit in with any of the resolutions being discussed here. Green Guilt: the IPCC I would like to thank CON for providing some support for his claims. Unfortunately, I find his source lacking. I started to rebut each point on the page CON linked to, but realized that I would quickly be over my character limit. This sort of conspiracy theory website is akin to a Gish Gallop. Even so, it doesn’t matter, because the fact that data and reports are used for political purposes, that there are discussion on how best to present the position of the material, or that contributors to papers are sometimes determined by internal politics, does not mean that the IPCC’s purpose is to mislead people via Green Guilt. Eugenics Again, I would like to thank CON for bringing some sources to bear, even though they are again quite lacking. Recognizing that overpopulation is a real problem [5], and noting that it has an impact on other human caused problems, such as global warming, is not eugenics. Even if there were some nut-jobs proposing things such as CON suggests in the 1970s [6], this does not mean that eugenicists are prevalent today, or that they are in positions of power. Finally, that some wealthy individuals promote responsible parenthood and family planning options is not eugenics. The Elites It seems that CON has dropped the argument that so called “elites” are manipulated into believing that global warming is a real threat. Loose Ends CON has made several claims at the end of his comments that are irrelevant. He has attacked the scientific enterprise, expanded his conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, and even made the case that increases in CO2 may be beneficial. I will not be addressing these because they are not relevant to the resolutions being discussed. Final Thoughts CON made three main arguments in the first round, all of which I have addressed. The burden to demonstrate these resolutions sits with CON, and he has not met his burden, as I have shown. I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate; I don’t generally debate deniers, it has been interesting. Sources: [1] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [2] http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org... [3]http://www.slate.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://howmany.org... [6] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-political-science-of-climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.64

    climate: 11.26

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

    sourceText: 1.11 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.86)

    change: 9.13

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

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.86)

    real: 3.25

    premises: 3.00 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.25 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.34)
• PRO

  97% of scientist say it is a crisis.

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  97% of scientist say it is a crisis.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.45

    climate: 12.80

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

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 10.39

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)
• PRO

  The Camp for Climate Change is a peaceful group of...

  Show full argument

  Protests have drawn attention to climate issues

  The Camp for Climate Change is a peaceful group of protestors setting up tents outside the European Climate Exchange (near Liverpool Street Satation). It has recieved a lot of coverage and shows the great public support for Climate Change action. This is the first time climate has been officially on the agenda for an international summit such as this and it is good that this is being highlighted.

  • https://debatewise.org/debates/765-g20-protests-at-best-a-waste-of-time-at-worst-a-dangerous-disruption/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.39

    climate: 18.40

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

    premises: 9.19 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)

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

    change: 4.68

    premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.65)
• PRO

  He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns Con managed to find recent examples of politicians blaming hurricanes and forest fires on climate change, and has cited how humans are not in danger of asphyxiation, but he has neglected the long-established mainstream concerns of the scientific community. They now deserve review. Atmospheric CO2: CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium. Atmospheric Ozone: Unlike most greenhouse gases, ozone deflects ultraviolet light, which is dangerously energetic. While most greenhouse gases keep life on earth warm and cozy, ozone prevents UV rays from directly burning life forms. Climate change from emission of halocarbons and CFCs are thankfully already regulated because of their ability to destroy ozone, but they are one more example of the potential for anthropogenic climate change. Oceanic: The oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. Con points to the seasonal increase in ice, ignoring the seasonal decrease in ice (see logical fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter), and to a non-scientific news article that predicted we would not have ice at this time (see logical fallacy: Fallacy). Fallacious Logic: Anecdotal [26] vs. Statistical Evidence and Misinterpretation of Mistakes [27]: If a physicist miscalculates the speed of the moon, it doesn't disprove the theory of gravitation. If we argued about whether gravity existed, it would be perfectly fair for Con to cite research projects that conclude that Newton's calculus systematically fails at predicting the paths of celestial bodies, but if Con cannot find such research conclusions, substituting with examples where "meteor alarmists" fail to predict the exact path of a meteoroid for five years brings nothing to the discussion. There are two logical reasons for this: Con would be relying on 1) 'anecdotal' evidence that ignores a larger picture, and 2) an absolutist interpretation in which a single mistake disproves an entire theory. This is the precise mechanism Con used in the first round of this debate. He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change theorists, but they scarcely dented the scientific data showing the existence of anthropogenic climate change. He additionally provides one link labeled "bad science," one labeled "manipulations" and two links labeled "lies," which are additionally statistically irrelevant and inevitable. Again, following this logic, would Con conclude that chemotherapy is inneffective because it occasionally doesn't work? No, he would know better, because even though the burden of proof relies on the treatment, instances where it demonstrates validity are more relevant than instances where it does not. What changes so much about people's thought process when contemplating climate change? Con's third properly cited source debunks an incorrect 5-year prediction by BBC, and its author, David Rose, writes as if this debunks every climate change theory on earth. Con's sixth properly cited source responds to a New York Times article, because actual climate science holds that increases in global heat can go undetected to atmospheric readings for decades at a time, partially because the oceans absorb heat as well. Strawman Fallacy [28]: Of the seven sources Con cites properly, the first responds to the hurricane correlation but admits to global warming. The second responds to the wildfire correlation but says nothing of global warming. Climate science never relied on hurricanes or wildfires as evidence. Cherrypicking and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [29]: Con's third properly cited source neglects the past century, the past decade, and mentions only that the arctic still gets colder at the proper time of year (and is written by a biased reporter whose profile boasts of shooting down "climate alarmists"). The fourth referred only to antarctic sea ice of 2013 and admitted to an average warming of temperatures, stating “If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” and even cites a long-established global warming theory that the average increase in temperatures creates hotter and colder extremes (Antarctic temperatures count as extremes). The fifth ignores global polar bear numbers and focuses on the "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," and responds only to "Polar Bear worries," distorting the concerns of mainstream climate scientists who already believe global warming will freeze the colder parts of the globe for the next several decades. The sixth responds to a New York Times article that I can only assume is fallacious - I didn't check, because the New York Times is not a scientific journal, nor is Forbes. Con's seventh properly cited source refers to sea level, which depends on melting ice, which I've already mentioned was never scheduled to happen on mass scales for several more decades, because climate change starts by making hot areas hotter and cold areas colder. Appeal to Nature [30]: Polio, the Flu, infant mortality, the bubonic plague, and a host of other issues are all perfectly natural, but for some reason most of society felt they are worth our attention. While I daresay Con would agree, his basic logical processing once again changes when the topic becomes climate change. "For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools" and "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" are fallacious appeals to nature by Con. Accusations of Monetary Incentive: Con has stated that climate research is all about grant money, but hasn't defined any government objective to alarm people about climate change. In fact, the greatest political rivals of climate environmentalism are oil and coal. The government's oil lobby is huge, and many Congressmen have financial investments in oil and deny the existence of climate change. American voters complain to the U.S. government when gas prices go up, and the U.S. government has subsidized oil markets for decades. Coal produces the cheapest electricity prices available, and is commonly painted politically as an employment blessing to coal miners. Also, Con's sixth source responds to "New York Times" hysteria, not scientific hysteria, suggesting a rivalry between corporate news agencies. Ambiguity of Semantics [31]: "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." What? Abuse of sources: Misrepresentation of scientific sources provided: I quote from one of Con's Solar Radiation links: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction." Con no doubt referenced and pasted his Solar Radiation links thinking they would show that Global Warming occurs because of the sun, when in fact they show the opposite. Selection of non-scientific sources: While he cites scientific sources to discuss Solar Radiation in the comments section, and while he pastes several links from nature.com (claiming they "talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem"), the sources he effectively summarizes and properly cites are non-scientific. Lack of citation for relevant sources and overcitation for irrelevant sources: "The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c." - It's possible Con means negative 18c, which is what the average temperature of the earth would hypothetically be if the greenhouse effect didn't work. Our existence is a demonstration of its relevance. I would visit his provided source to find out what he really means, but none was provided. Con pasted so many URL's that he avoided reading, summarizing or discussing that he didn't have room to provide actual sources for the facts he cited. He provided so many sources that support my end of this argument that by taking the time to explain them, I scarcely have space to add any more. Since it is my belief that debates have character limits to help force debaters to know what they are talking about, I refuse to follow his example and post a chaotic pool of sources in the comments section. 26. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 27. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 28. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 29. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 30. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 31. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

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

    BM25 score: 23.33

    climate: 18.71

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

    premises: 8.25 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.72)

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

    change: 4.35

    premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)

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

  OPINION Just when we thought CNN couldn't get any more...

  Show full argument

  CNN Lost Their Mind (Again): Guess How Long Their Climate Change Town Hall Is

  OPINION Just when we thought CNN couldn't get any more pathetic, they prove us wrong...again. The network on Tuesday announced their climate change town hall. The debate, scheduled for Sept. 4th will be seven hours long. Yes, seven hours. The reason? The network wants to give each of the 10 candidates ample time to respond to questions during this "unprecedented prime-time event." Each of the 10 candidates will be given 40 minutes to discuss their plans to address climate change. Hosts Wolf Blitzer, Erin Burnett, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo and Don...

  • https://www.allsides.com/story/cnn-hosts-7-hour-town-hall-climate-change
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.32

    climate: 14.15

    conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)

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

    change: 8.96

    conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 4.23 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.06)
• PRO

  If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor...

  Show full argument

  Climate Shift

  A suprisingly short response. Framework My opponent has totally ignored the framework thus far, using round 1 for construction instead of acceptance, and round 2 for rebuttals instead of construction. Conduct should be awarded to pro for this reason. Pro's Defence Only the scientists who report opinions have opinions that matter. This is called Voluntary Response Bias. If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor deny the existence of climate shift. This point my opponent makes does not meet the burden of proof, and does not fully discredit the scientific consensus. The source my opponent posted does not even fully discredit my argument. Many of my points are left totally unrebbutted, and I forward those points. "The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now." This statement is vague and unsourced and isn't a compelling argument. My opponent seeks to rebut my entire argument by a failed discrediting of one source and point. He does not present a compelling case, and his argument does not meet the burden of proof.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.27

    climate: 19.77

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

    premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)

    change: 3.14

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
• PRO

  There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  It is important that in a debate only the issues and the arguments presented are addressed. Referring to the adversary's school of thought is not a valid way of countering his actual arguments. E. G. in our case I may be better or worse than the "average Co2 advocate" but I must be attacked on the merit on my own arguments not on the merits of the arguments of "advocates". By doing so Con commits the straw-man fallacy (makes it look like his adversary has a weaker argument and then tries to attack the weaker argument) [1] and insinuates that I am not doing my job and only trying to demonstrate that there is global warming. I restate my initial promise and the topic on which we agreed to debate (global warming a) exists – agreed, b) is caused in a significant degree by humans – still debating). I will stick to my promise and I will win this debate by proving what I have promised. The second straw-man fallacy committed by Con is that he suggests that I must prove that all or most of the warming can be explained by Co2 increase. Although this is a clever strategy I will not get sidetracked. As I have already stated in my previous 2 speeches, I assert that global warming is caused in a "significant" degree by Co2. I have also pointed out in my 2nd speech methods that can prove my theory false. I thank Con for taking up some of them. I thank Con for clarifying his position on temperature trends. I can now contradict him without contradicting myself. Con states that temperatures have increased since the last Ice Age and the last Little Ice Age. Con further states that the temperatures have been stable for the past decade. This last statement is false; you can verify it by looking out the window or by looking at satellite temperatures [2]. Con tries to induce guilt by association [3] between GW science and GW show. I will not try to defend Al Gore. Con, however, is trying to defend oil financed science. This is a losing strategy. As I have stated, we are debating arguments. What I have presented is clear bias from the science negating human induced GW. I will further argue that while IPCC tried to link hurricanes to GW and failed, the oil industry tried to silence independent US government financed research [4]. At the end of the day we have finance for human induced GW with no strings attached and finance for negation of GW WITH strings attached form "innocent" oil companies [5] [6] (quoted by Con). It is also weird for oil industry to finance science that negates GW, given the suspicion that this arises. If all that was important was the truth then there would be no need for oil industry to spend billions on financing this research as they would get the same result with no cost. There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and no meaning in the use o loaded words like bureaucrats. The works of the IPCC are in fact peer-reviewed [7]. I see that Con has restated his idea that scientific consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now consider this as an argument per se. The first consequence of Con's argument is that he indirectly admits that there is some sort of consensus. It is clear that by counting the number of scientists that agree or dissent with global warming neither Pro, neither Con can win the debate. But they can prove probable Pro or probable Con. Con pointed out that there were times when scientists got it wrong regarding homosexuality or Steady State Theory. While the premise is correct the inference is not. These examples are interesting because nobody counts the successes. It is dull when scientists get it right. You would expect the smart people to be right. Much like in plane crash fear the proportion of false theories created by scientists is exaggerated by the fact that wrong theories are surprising. Furthermore, Con states that what ultimately "won" was science. Winning is final and large consensus would be a good sign of winning. All the factual sane knowledge we have about the world is based upon scientific consensus (not even 100%, there are still scientists that think the Earth is flat). It may be proven wrong but it rarely does. Most of the time new theories incorporate old theories instead of contradicting them (Pythagoras generalized theorem -> Pythagoras theorem). If Con were right even elementary knowledge and communication would be impossible. While consensus doesn't mean 100% certainty, it means high probability. At this level, it would be safer to bet on the vast majority of scientists. I will further prove that their science is correct. Con quoted a part of the proof [8] I presented in my second speech pointing out that there was cooling at the end of the Carboniferous period. However, Con forgot to mention anything about the fact that in the beginning the temperatures were high and that the total amount of Co2 decreased during this period. Con also ignores other phenomena that contributed to cooling [9]. My argument about Co2 concentration and temperature stands. Also the Carboniferous is called that way because of the fact that coal was formed during that period [9]. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere then was transformed into wood and than into coal. We are now just putting it back into the atmosphere. There is actually more coal than limestone formed by skeletons of sea creatures. Con is also wrong that Co2 is gradually decreasing since the last 600 million years as I have shown in my first 2 speeches. In my first argument I presented the super-greenhouse effect on Venus. Con decided to attack this example in his 2nd speech. His firs calculation is correct: Venus should receive 2 times the sunlight earth receives. The rest of the demonstration is wrong. First Con is trying to demonstrate that there is no GW on Earth, but in his calculation he uses this conclusion as an hypothesis. He states that if temperatures on Earth are 288 k and Venus temperatures 737 the greenhouse effect on Venus would be 737-2*288 = 161 (Con supposes that the mean temperature on Earth has no Greenhouse Effect). In fact the temperature of Earth with no Greenhouse Effect would be 255 K [10]. Then the temperature on Venus would be 510 K with no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect would be in fact 227 K. Con now states that the Co2 effect is linear. In his first speech he stated: "a little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically". So the relationship is not in fact linear. If Venus has a 227 K temperature increase because of greenhouse effect then on Earth a small increase in the initial concentration of Co2 would lead to severe initial increases according to Con's model. For a more clear explanation of the process see graph [11]. In fact Venus is even hotter than Mercury [12] which is closer to the Sun. The Moon also proves the greenhouse theory and it is at the same distance as earth [13] and is on average colder. I have proven the bias of the science that negates GW, gave explanations about the Carboniferous and the Co2 output, have shown how Con's calculation actually proves my theory true. Te motion stands. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.sciencemag.org... [8] http://www.geocraft.com... [9] http://www.palaeos.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://img404.imageshack.us... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://www.teachersdomain.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.27

    climate: 12.83

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

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

    change: 10.37

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

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

  I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to...

  Show full argument

  Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

  My opponent has dropped every issues except the ozone layer. I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there I conclude that I should win on the dropped areas due to no response from my opponent. As for the ozone layers there is conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals were the cause. [3][4] "There is now conclusive proof that CFCs and similar chemicals are the cause of ozone depletion in the stratosphere, since chemicals found there could come from no other source (Russell et al., 1996). The reduction and elimination of production of many ozone-depleting substances in industrialize" [3] Thanks for the debate. 3. http://www.un.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.27

    climate: 9.29

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

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

    change: 7.34

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

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)

    real: 6.64

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.93)