args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I like how you reference a democrat to put doubt into my "conservative" site. This is a scientific issue, not a political one. Supporting evidence that the claims of manmade global climate change are dramatically overstated: We've seen record total amounts of ice, snow, and cold. Polar bears are thriving. Oceans are rising much less than predicted. -Further note here. I've shown multiple times that the predictions of those claiming manmade climate change is going to destroy the world have been incorrect. If these predictions based on the scientific findings are incorrect, perhaps some of their overall claim is also incorrect. If I said something was going to happen and here's what we expect to see to show it is happening, but then none of my predictions came true, you might assume my overall premise/hypothesis is also incorrect. Again, I'm not saying manmade climate change is not real. We are warming the client. I, again, take issue with the "threat" that everyone is blowing out of proportion. Further evidence: 31,000 Scientists signed a petition saying they do not support CATASTROPIC global warming. http://www.petitionproject.org... (including over 9,000 with PhD's. Perhaps there's more to the story? Nature still produces FAR more CO2 than man. 2014 NASA satellite supports this. Everything portraying us destroying the world centers years earlier without adequate research and a documentary (cited by my opponent) where it's shown to have inaccuracies and flat out lies to get the agenda across. Urban Heat Island effect leads to falsely high readings which global warming catastrophists run with.

Climate Change is the greatest threat faced by humanity today

Hey there, I believe that climate change is not the greatest threat facing humanity today. We have more important problems to deal with like covid, Nuclear, Etc. Pls accept this challenge. . . . :)

Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

Opponents arguments: We have a moral obligation to future generations. We as people have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change to our future generations. Our moral obligation is to lesson suffering for our children and their children and their children. Also climate change is man made so it is our job to mitigate it. Climate change is a small part natural but man has played a big part in increasing the effects. Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to mitigate the effects because they have played the biggest part in climate change and undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so. For those reasons you should vote pro. We don't have a moral obligation since we should be focusing on using less than a fifth of the money needed to mitigate the effects of climate change (500 billion dollars) to eliminate poverty and world hunger extend my arguments VOTE CON

Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

This is a graph of CO2 concentrations and global temperature. If you look closely you can see that every time an ice age ends and the temperature starts rising CO2 levels lag behind a few hundred to thousands of years. http://www.futuretimeline.net...; width="558" height="454" />This is a graph showing the same thing except for the years 1850-2000. At the year around 1975 a big change takes place in the way CO2 levels and temperature are related. Unlike in the past 400000 years where CO2 levels lagged behind temperature; starting around 1975 the CO2 levels rise almost Simultaneously. In the past 25 to 40 years there have been no worldwide effecting volcanoes, asteroids, or anything else that could cause that change the relationship between CO2 and temperature other than humans. Another element of evidence is that "when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years. The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors."-http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a graph of the results: http://upload.wikimedia.org...; /> With this you don't even have to be a scientist to find that with no human influence it's incredibly different. Also even if CO2 isn't enough; scientists have found a new green house gas that produced by humans and is 7100 times stronger than Carbon Dioxide. http://en.wikipedia.org....

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

My partner and I negate the resolution"Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. A Developed Country is a sovereign state which has a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure relative to other `less developed nations or one that is highly industrialized. The term " Developed Countries" is too broad. There is a generalization that every developed country emits a significant amount of CO2 and can afford the taxation costs of mitigation. For example, India, even with advanced technology, is in a national debt of $ 345.8 billion. The World Bank classifies all low- and middle-income countries as developing. We feel it necessary to define the following terms: Moral Obligation- an obligation composed of morals of ethics and injustices. Climate change -the perpetual fluctuation in weather patterns in a particular region or worldwide. However, unlike global warming, which refers to just to the accession in the earth"s surface temperature" climate change refers to alterations in a regions overall weather patterns, including precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, Contention I : The cost of mitigating climate change in developed countries will negatively affect the economy. b In order to mitigate climate change as a government , the country must raise taxes. In Australia, Carbon is taxed at 23 per ton. According to the Australian government"s modeling, this is likely to cause the cost of living to increase by an average of 0.7 per cent in the first year, and another 0.2 per cent in 2015-16. Every year the price will increase by 2.5% until 2015. Besides Governmental actions, most encouraged ways to control your carbon footprint are inconvenient and expensive. For example, carpooling, hybrid cars, and avoiding reforestation are inconvenient. Most Hybrid cars cost between $2,000 and $10,000 more than a gasoline engine car. To some people, they are not an option because of the higher prices. The average Hybrid has about 15-27 miles per gallon and most new gasoline powered cars get 22-29 mpg. Also, some people cannot lower the amount of gasoline they use. Not all occupants of a country are economically stable and therefore, our economy cannot afford the cost and taxes of mitigation. Contention 2: Certain aspects of climate change are uncontrollable and not caused by humankind. Solar emission and slow changes in the earth"s orbital elements are natural causes of climate change. Solar emission is when magnetic energy in the sun has built up. These are not preventable therefore we don"t have a moral obligation to mitigate it. Also, plate tectonics are not preventable by humans. It is a significant cause of climate change. Certain climate changes are not preventable. For example, during the ice age, the sea level rose 80 meters. Climate on Earth has changed significantly for over 2.4 billion years, even long before human activity could have played a role. According to the National Ocean Service, "Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth"s orbit around the Sun." Contention III: The Mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation. Moral Obligations should not exist. A country must stabilize itself before helping others. The fact is that most developed countries have a high national debt and must work on fixing themselves before fixing the world. For example, even the most developed country in the world, Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. The definition of obligation is "A bond of moral duty." However, with the job of an obligation, our priorities are minimized especially economically. This is not a moral obligation. In fact, saying that developed countries are morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change is unethical. The countries should not be morally obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change; it should only be encouraged to people and therefore the responsibility of the people, not the government. Therefore Mitigating climate change in developed countries is expensive, not all developed countries are stable, and the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation. In conclusion, climate change should not be dealt with now because we do not have a moral obligation mitigate it