args

Climate shift

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...

CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.

I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change. I. The affirmative is wrong in that recycling decreases demand for paper. 1. The demand for paper is constantly rising as the population rises. 2. At worst, reycling would cause no more commercial forests to be planted (and these forests are not that good, as proven later). 3. Because it will end up balancing, recycling is not harming the environment, and this point of the affirmative's is null. II. Why recycling helps the environment. 1. To begin with, I will say that trees from naturally growing forests are important to the climate whereas those made by companies are not as beneficial. A. They are made quickly, as to maximize profit, require massive amounts of fertilizer, and will soon be cut down. They also do not manage carbon dioxide as well as other trees since their only purpose is to be made into paper. B. Because of this, they are only temporarily beneficial to the environment, whereas "virgin trees", or natural forests (or any forest that has been established for awhile) are far more beneficial. C. Because these forests will not be cut down, they continuously manage carbon dioxide levels. D. These trees also have spread their roots, and in doing so, can provide more managing of carbon dioxide. As well, this root system helps prevent erosion, and these forests generally have more biodiversity. So in essence, trees grown by corporations are not grown to help manage carbon dioxide, but to be made into paper. Trees that have been planted otherwise contribute more to the environment. 2. The earth's population is in a state of rapid expansion. This means the consumption of paper will continually rise, and, the amount of land needed for farming rise as well. A. This necessary increase in farming land will mean that more and more land efficiency will be required. B. Because much of this growth is less developed countries, there will not be companies planting trees (which obviously are not that useful to the environment anyway). C. Many native forests will be cut down, and this will increase climate change. 3. This can be prevented by encouraging recycling. A. The affirmative might object by saying that corporations for planting trees should be made, however... B. Recycling paper is cheaper than making new paper. C. These poorer countries would therefore it would be in that countries interests to recycle rather than to engage in a new commercial industry (which again, is not that beneficial in regulating carbon dioxide). D. Recycling will reduce the amount of native forests cut down (especially in developing countries), and in doing so will help fight climate change. III. Finally, it should be recognized that in reality, much of the current climate change is occurring in developing countries, not developed ones. The affirmative totally ignores the non-developed world which does not have these industries. So vote for me. My arguments make more sense, and do not ignore half the world (or even more) as the affirmative does.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

I thank my opposition for accepting this debate. This discussion is about Climate Change Anomalies from the years 1900 to 2200 (see comments section), and whether they are anthropogenic. Anomalies are deviations from "schedule" weather cycles, and can include both hot and cold extremes, making "global warming" only half of this discussion. So, right off the bat, temperature anomalies began rising just after the year 1900 [1]. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> As shown in the following chart [2], this corresponds closely with a recent rise in CO2 emissions. This chart shows that CO2 levels have always travelled in cycles, but broke their most recent scheduled downward cycle to reach their highest level in over 400,000 years. In a sense, one might say nature did half the work on CO2 and the human race took it from there. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> Correllation is obviously not causation, but the mechanics that link CO2 to temperature have been well documented. Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects: A Review [3] 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. http://climate.nasa.gov...; /> Oceanic Greenhouse Effects: A Review 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. However, before the oceans can truly begin warming, the ice caps have to melt. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...; /> And as we can see here [4], though the ice caps have shown about a half-century lag behind the thinner, more responsive atmosphere, they are roughly 1 million square kilometers smaller than they ought to be, as of 2014. It appears that climate anomalies are closely associated with CO2 levels, that CO2 levels are primarily anthropogenic and will continue to be so until the next 'natural' CO2 spike roughly one hundred thousand years from now (chart 1), and that the greenhouse mechanisms behind all this are straightforward and established. 1. http://climate.nasa.gov... 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. http://climate.nasa.gov... 4. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu...

Human caused climate change is total nonsense

If there are any stupid apes out there that believe in human caused climate change, Then please step forward so that I can make a monkey out of you.

Consequences of geoengineering could be worse than climate change

Graeme Wood. "Re-Engineering the Earth." The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the The Atlantic. September 12th, 2010: "as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. 'Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,' says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially."

Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

If you were born after February 1985, [1] you have never experienced a colder than average month. This, coupled with obvious decrease in Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland ice sheets is a frightening sight. [2] It may seem obvious to most that this is a terrible thing, as sea levels rise and weather patterns change, we could be in a peck of trouble. However, there are always those who believe that Climate Change is just a hoax, thought up by Liberal politicians and science advocates. To them, I say, "Nay!" for you would be incorrect. In the last years, climate change is beginning to gain conclusive evidence to support it's existence. As the world becomes less of what it was a century ago, we must adopt new technologies and policies to save our Blue Planet and the beautiful life that exists on it (because, hey. No where else have we found life.). This is our home, and even if it means sacrificing a little of our hard-earned cash to save it, we must do everything we can. I await a wonderfully vivid debate! Thank you. 1]http://blogs.courier-journal.com... 2] http://www.nrdc.org...