args

Climate Change is happening

Note: following argument copy and pasted from a previous debate of mine. Con FRAMEWORK My opponent is stating a specific scientific theory is true, and as the side making a positive assertion. She holds the burden of proof. If I simply negate her arguments without forwarding any of my own that should be enough to win this debate. On top of her having the BOP she has another obstacle to overcome. She has to prove 2 things while I merely have to prove 0. She must prove that A. Global warming is real and B. that it is also man made. So if she proves global warming is real but fails to show that it is man made than she has lost this debate. The norm is to make opening arguments in round 2, rebuttals in rund 3 and counter rebuttals in round 4. I will not deviate from the norm this debate. CLIMATE GATE A lot of the global warming debate has been made political. Scientists are engaging in a cover up to sweep all evidence that climate change isn't occurring, under the rug. It's no mystery that these scientists with all their university indoctrination into liberal thinking are themselves big liberals. Global warming is used as a political tool to increase the size and role of the federal govenment and if it's proven to be false then it's a big tool that is lost. It's sad but too many scientists are willing to engage in this coverup to help their team win. The truth simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is thateir team can hijact the eenvironmentalist movement for ther own selfish causes. In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2] The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3] "Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s! ... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4] "Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5] I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate. GLOBE IS NOT COOLING According to a report by the Daily Mail. The MET office has released data showin no global warming for the last 16 years. The temperature of the Earth has been remaining relativiley steady. [6] Here is a cart to llustrate my point. It's pretty much scientific consensus that the Earth has not been heating up for the past 10 years and longer. There can not be global warming if the globe isn't warming. In fact the term climate change is slowly replacing the term global warmig so that any change in the Earths climate can be used to suit the left's political agenda. ARCTIC ICE The arctic ice has increased by over 50% according to a report by the ESE. [7] Despite the fact that Al Gore and other advocates for global warming state that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now.[8] Strong evidence actually shows that the ice cap are getting bigger and stronger. It's only a matter of time beforethey start claiming it's global cooling again like they did in the 40s through 70s and advocatng for nuking the poles like they did back in that time. I'm glad people were smarter than to take the liberal's advice to nuke the poles then. I wish they were justa little bit smarter now. CONCLUSION Rebuttals are coming next round. I'll leave his round by stating that the Ice caps are getting bigger and have not disappeared like people who say global warming is real predicted 5 years ago. Also the Earth's temperature is also pretty steady sowe have multple forms of evidence that the Earth is not warming and when you add that on top of the uncovered emails showing a conspiracy in the scientific community to fudge numbers perform trickery and just plain lie to foward their theory, it's pretty obvious global warming is a lie. I leave you with some predictions people who have forwarded this theory to advance a political agenda have made "Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades " up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated" Al Gore 1992 "senior research scientist" David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within "a few years," snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event" in Britain. "Children just aren"t going to know what snow is," he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."[9] Here is the funny thing aboutglobal warming alarmists not only will they say increased temperaues on Earth will make snowing a thing of the pas but when it does snow real heavy they also somehow blame that on global warming. So what is it? Does global warming lead to more snow or less? "Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the "greenhouse effect" would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."[9] sources 1. http://web.archive.org... 2. http://www.americanthinker.com... 3 http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4 http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 5. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com... 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 7. http://www.esa.int...

Human caused climate change is total nonsense

I've looked at all the data, The statement that climate change is caused by man is irrefutable the evidence is all on one side, And i mean real science not psuedoscience

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I am here to debate the MAN MADE side of climate change. I do not disagree that the world is warming, I only believe the current warming trends are exaggerated and people are freaking out over a natural process. Man Made Climate Change, The FACTS: 1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate: Many people I have met say, "Manmade global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof." 2.The computer models don"t work The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... 3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now. 4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time. 5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now: Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades. The political side of things: This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject. The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey. Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way: The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today. The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... The final proof: And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real: It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.

Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

To begin with, the definition of developed countries is incorrect. A developed country is a highly industrialized country. Your first contention states that developed countries are largely responsible for climate change. However, this is a broad generalization. Many of the countries that contribute to climate change are still developing because of their large debts. Also, there is a generalization that every country release a significant amount of of CO2. My opponent's case focuses on global warming rather that climate change. My opponent is ignoring that climate change is also caused by uncontrollable changes in our orbit around the sun and solar emissions. My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries are the only one's with capabilities to act on climate change. However, most Developed Countries do have a large national debt. We need to focus on the country's success before fixing the world. His last contention states that the greatest impact will come from when the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses make reductions. However, again this is a huge generalization. Not all developed countries release a signifigant amount of CO2 or even can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change. Your example of the US is irrevlevant. The United States cannot afford to cut back on the use of nonrenewable resources. You provide solutions that are inconvenient. For example, what if you live far from work, or couldn't afford organic foods. My opponent states that cooling the ocean floor only costs $14 billion. However most countries, with a massive debt cannot afford this. For example, take my previous argument that Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. Shouldn't the country try to fix itself before fixing the world? The Norway example does not support the Pro argument. He states that it is more of a reason mitigate the effects of climate change. However, isn't it more of a reason to fix ourselves before the world. My opponent conceptualizes the view of how to mitigate the effects of climate change without providing a valid solution. Obviously $14 billion is not cheap and we should not invest in the world when our own country has economic issues that are not caused by Climate Change. Moreover, the action to mitigate climate change is more of a moral right to an individual rather than a country.