Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewManmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I'm just going to give up at this point. I can't even understand most of what your stating let alone formulate a response. I've had other debates on this site that even after months of reviewing my opponent's argument I still couldn't make heads out of tails out of my opponent's arguments. Maybe, just maybe if I had a year to respond I could defeat you. Thanks for the debate.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Your arguments are long and with little breaks between paragraphs. I'm going to ignore your response and attempt to talk through you. I lost any hope of convincing you when you stated. "Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. " epidexipteryx The temperature has increased .87 Celsius. [2] The 400 ppm mark was hit in 2013. "has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii." [3] Impact, there is a clear and strong positive correlation between CO2 and tempature. To my opponent's arguments struggle as much as you need against scientific data. Thanks for the debate. Sources 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. http://climate.nasa.gov...
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
Of all contemporary political issues, there is one clear issue that stands out from all of the rest. It stands out because, unlike all other issues, it affects every single person in the world, and every single person who ever will live on this planet. Climate change is a huge problem which could potentially kill us if we don't do something to stop it [1]. Scientists are certain that climate change, at least very significantly, caused by humans [2]. As I always say when I debate religion, you can believe whatever you want, but it's ridiculous to say that the scientific consensus is wrong when you have little to no evidence. Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans, we will clearly need to change as a society. If you look at the graph of countries in source [3], you will see that the US and China are really close in terms of emissions, but are clearly ahead of other countries. However, China has 4.3 times as many people as the US. So, the average American will emit about 4 times as much carbon as the average Chinese person. That is disgusting. While the entire world needs to reduce their carbon emissions, the US needs to change the most. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get 3 million people to change the way they live their lives. That is why the government needs to do something. Now, even though the debate is whether or not the government should do something, it wouldn't do the debate any justice to neglect to talk about what the government could do. First of all, the government could instill a major tax on paper and plastic shopping bags. Paper bags kill countless trees and require huge amounts of energy to produce. Plastic bags obviously are made from oil and they don't biodegrade, so they get in our waterways and do bad things, as you've no doubt seen. Both paper and plastic bags are bad [4]. There is already a movement among environmentally conscious people in which they shop using reusable canvas bags. Those are much more sustainable for the environment, and if paper and plastic bags weren't free anymore, people would be much more inclined to bring their own, or at the very least reuse their old bags. Also, the government could tax big businesses which do not take initiative in protecting the environment. This is a straightforward and easy way to force businesses to care. Lastly (or at least the last one I will mention in this argument), the government could do simple things, such as not allowing offshore drilling. Yes, offshore drilling will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But our dependence on foreign oil would also be reduced if we simply educed our dependence on oil. It is absolutely ridiculous how much oil we use in the US. We are only home to about 4.5% of the world's population, yet we consume almost a quarter of the oil [5]. That is absolutely ridiculous. We may slam China for being inconsiderate of the environment, so much so that we forget that we are as bad as they are, or way worse per capita. The US is absolutely horrible in terms of environmental protection, and 3 million people won't change spontaneously, at least, not before it's too late. That is why we need the government to get involved now. We don't want it to be too late. I am looking forward to your response! 1. No, I am not just playing in to media hype. Here is an excellent website spelling out exactly how it will kill us, brought to you by our very own EPA: http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.epa.gov... "Scientists know with virtual certainty that:..." 3. http://www.epa.gov... 4. http://www.reusablebags.com... 5. http://www.nationmaster.com...
Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.
I see the point you are trying to get at is that we have no evidence, As far as current effects are, Focusing more on the questionability of prediction models. In that case, Here is a model that measures the average global temperature up to 2018. It's clear from the graph that the global temperature is increasing at an exponential rate: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ But as for your skepticism on the weight that our civilization takes for the problem of climate change, Here also is a graph showing the CO2 levels in the air throughout the 1980s, To the year 2017: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ Notice that despite the larger timeframes between the two graphs, Both correlate. Around the point were CO2 emissions go up, The temperature for the corresponding year also goes up. I think it's obvious that this drastic rise in CO2 is our fault, Considering the first graph starts to show the temperature rise in the 1860s, The tail end of the industrial revolution.
The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org...
Man Made Climate Change Is Fake
*Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of "they" until the very end! :) Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations. His first observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely has an effect on climate. His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He is correct in saying that a consensus is more scientific then a home experiment but a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus. My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim. I run into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence. (keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong with the models. In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect. My opponent then says, "my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane. My opponent also says there is an undoubted correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007). As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time, Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Then, in my opponents fifth point, he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural." This is just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only in the last 1000 years! Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that is what they were planning to debate. In my opponents case he just states everything that I have already disproven. He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere. He says humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...) Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease. To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or not. After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence. True evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible. In conclusion, I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.
CCS will take far too long to implement for climate change
Rainforest Action Network, an environmental non-profit organization, stated the following in a fact sheet on its website titled "The Dirty Truth about Clean Coal," available at www.ran.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2009): "The concept of CCS is that we can curb climate change by capturing the emissions from coal plants and store them underground, safely away from our atmosphere for eternity. The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS technology is not likely to be a commercially viable option for at least another decade, and new coal-fired plants are slated to begin construction now. There are also no working models of CCS at a commercial-scale power plant anywhere in the world."
Global Warming is Real.
Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate. Is Global Warming (now on GW) real or is it myth? Rules : 1. The first round is for acceptance. No argument will be posted. 2. We are dealing with facts and evidences, here. 3. The maximum number of videos allowed to be posted per round for each user is 2 (two). 4. The maximum number of images allowed to be posted per round for each user is 5 (five).
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
Far from being alarmists, scientists ground themselves in uncertainty because “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell). Politics and business reward leadership qualities, drawing fools and fanatics, while science and academia draw thinkers who question themselves. “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality” (Russell). The IPCC rightly holds that "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate” [58]. But although politics by nature is unscientific, the scientific community takes firm stances on issues that relate solely to science. “When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others” (Russell). And on that note, the IPCC continues its statement, “However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" [58] Con appears confused: “Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting,” so it seems I must rephrase with greater specificity: Con presumed that because he could provide nine links that highlight second-decimal mistakes in climate prediction (round 1), climate science itself is a mistake, not unlike presuming that because one could find nine physicists who made mathematical mistakes, astronomy itself is a mistake. This I referenced as "the fallacy fallacy," to which Con responded with incredulity [59], "this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" (round 2). . . though I am sure Con would love to believe I admitted to making a poor argument myself! To Con’s question on the Appeal to Nature fallacy, how is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Well, take disease - it's natural, that's a scientific fact. "Appealing to" that fact doesn't just mean pointing out that it's natural, it means concluding that nothing can or should be done about it. "Because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal" [30]. This is Con’s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity. I did misrepresent that temperature anomalies chart, it showed 132 years. My apologies. It showed highly fluctuating anomalies in the last 17 years. If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature. Con appreciates that my summary of source 41 conceded his point. I wrote it, I just re-read it, and I don’t know what he’s talking about. “A causes B” and “B causes A” - it’s a simple positive feedback loop. "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society" AAAS [60] This is not to be confused with political tactics like naming hurricanes after climate deniers. Science is defined by method which involves peer-review, and is not to be confused with the claims of political bloggers, activists or pundits. "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." - ACS [61] Nothing about the end of the world, just that it’s a growing threat to society - probably one of many. "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." AMS [62] The AMS view is important here, because of Con’s source that headlines, “Meteorologists are Global Warming Skeptics.” It’s a strange headline for an article whose actual content states that “According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.” Not skeptics, just not alarmists either. It’s ironic that Con is the only debate participant here who believes scientists are alarmists on this issue. "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." APS [63] No threats or bargains here, nothing about whether it’s America’s fault or China’s fault, or whether this means we have to stop driving cars. This is about science, and science with a political target or without proper peer review is not science. It’s easy to find geologists who are skeptical of global warming - they’re paid to find oil, not think about its effect on the air. They don’t perform peer-reviewed research. But the Geological Society of America, speaking for the science of geology over the business of it, concurs that Global Warming is anthropogenic. "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouseR08;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." GSA [64] And the American Geophysical Union agrees, "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." - AGU [65] Sometimes the medical community even chips in: "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." - AMA [66] 58. http://t.co... 59. https://t.co... 60. http://t.co... 61. http://t.co... 62. http://t.co... 63. http://t.co... 64. http://t.co... 65. http://t.co... 66. https://t.co...
Climate Change is the end of the world
NO. It has become a new and fashionable way of attacking capitalism
Climate Change is the end of the world
Humankind has the ability to deal with it later
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I accept the debate rules, as well as the given definition.
Climate Change is happening
I was challenged to this out of nowhere. I'll just use this round for acceptance, and I urge my opponent to provide some arguments. Citations are a nice way to back up facts, but they are not a substitute for arguing. I look forward to my opponent's first argument.
The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated
So much evidence
Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists
I accept.
Anthropogenic climate change.
I accept.
That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate as well, although he doesn't address any of the concerns I had with his arguments or his own arguments' relevancy. The humidity graph had to do with the CO2/water vapor positive feedback loop you argued for in point 6 of your first argument. Thank you again.
That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
I accept.
Climate Change is caused by Humans
I accept your challenge! I look forward to a respectable debate with you! May the best side win!
