Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewJail climate change deniers.
We can't in good conscience risk the lives of potentially hundreds of millions of people because of an extremely remote chance the scientific consensus is wrong. You want both sides to be able to debate-- but there is nothing really to debate
global warming is real
Id like to start out my case by clarifying the topic is about humans causing global warming. Definitions: glob"al warm"ing noun a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Contention 1: 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. [2] [1][4] Contention 2: Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio [5] that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3] The vast majority of scientist believe it. Here's a graph of global temperatures that proves we have a problem. Conclusion: My opponent only made one point and failed to cite his evidence, therefore his point is invalid. I on the other hand cited all my points, and have presented significant evidence for man made global warming. This is why I believe you should vote pro. 1. National Research Council of the National Academies, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" (3.6 KB) , www.nap.edu, 2006 2.National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "Global Climate Change: Evidence - How Do We Know," www.climate.nasa.gov (accessed Apr. 26, 2010) 3.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" (19 MB) www.ipcc.ch, 2007 4.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Global Climate Change Indicators" (249 KB) , www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Apr. 13, 2010 5.Robert Andres, PhD, and Gregg Marland, PhD, et al., "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751-1991" (6.5 MB) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 23, 1994
climate change is fake
While you do have a point, it doesn't make sense. The American people tend to turn a blind eye to the topics that they are not interested. If the warming is not happening, how do you explain the strange temperature jumps that have occurred over the past few years? Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if there was no cause? As I have said, the American people won't focus on something if it isn't interesting or food. So the media spotlight drifted off to Oak Island and the Alaskan Gold Rush TV shows. The people don't care about it, so they don't pay attention. There's also something for you to think on. What happens to the chemicals that are emitted when gasoline and fuel burn? What happens when an oil rig goes down in flames, releasing hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the oceans? Coca-Cola can remove the rust of your car's bumper, what happens to all of those fumes? It's been proven that breathing in the burning chemicals poisons you, so where do the chemical fumes go?
The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated
Lack of scientific understanding
The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated
We’ve been here before
Climate Change is man caused
Thank you very much, I thank you for this debate.
Global warming is real
The use of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change as a source is almost worse than having no sources at all. First of all, the page my opponent links to was written in 1998. But more importantly, this is an organization run by Craig and Keith Idso, both skeptics whose research has been funded by the oil-backed Heartland Institute: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... Hardly the most trustworthy source, but even if you don't think their questionable motivations are making them biased towards denial of climate science, I think a more reasonable way to determine how likely it is as laypeople would be to examine the consensus on the issue among scientists. Admittedly this is anecdotal evidence, but I actually predicted my opponent to cite the Idso family, because they are among only a small handful of actual scientists who try to convince the public that global warming isn't real. Why is this the case? Well, there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue: http://iopscience.iop.org... Several studies of this kind have been done, and they invariably find that somewhere in the range of 97% of But more importantly, this is an organization run by Craig and Keith Idso, both skeptics whose research has been funded by the oil-backed Heartland Institute: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... Hardly the most trustworthy source, but even if you don't think their questionable motivations are making them biased towards denial of climate science, I think a more reasonable way to determine how likely it is as laypeople would be to examine the consensus on the issue among scientists. Admittedly this is anecdotal evidence, but I actually predicted my opponent to cite the Idso family, because they are among only a small handful of actual scientists who try to convince the public that global warming isn't real. Why is this the case? Well, there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue: http://iopscience.iop.org... Several studies of this kind have been done, and they invariably find that somewhere in the range of 97% of climate scientists not only say that warming is real, but that it is anthropogenic. I think I have made my point abundantly clear that if we take into account what actual scientists say on this issue in the aggregate, it is no contest. But if you are inclined to believe my opponent's study, I'd like to point out that there is no real warrant to the claim that is made. My opponent gives the claim of his evidence, and then says "it is clear that the rise in temperature caused it as the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide says"-this is clearly a logical fallacy. If we are to place so much value on this study, there has to be a better reason than "my source is clearly correct as my source says, thus I'm right." This is the equivalent of saying it is correct because it said so, and he later repeats this by saying that I went on a rant about scientists "but the study here was correct." No, I simply said that these are marginal voices, and there are specific reasons to think the study was not correct. Just keep in mind that 97% of scientists think that what it said is false. I won't really address the oceans claim because it isn't really explained to the level of being an argument, but as far as I can tell it is about how much carbon the oceans contain which is utterly irrelevant as the greenhouse effect is driven by gases in the atmosphere, and the only source that has increased significantly within the last couple centuries has been human pollution.
That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
I see little relevance with your graphs about humidity and such that has anything to do with the actual topic. But since round four is for conclusion only... And as always, thanks for debating. I have learned a lot and you seem like quite the genius. Though my stance on the subject stands and I believe my arguments had relevance. But again thanks it was fun.
Climate Change is caused by Humans
Rules- 1.) No "K's" 2.) Stay on topic 3.) NO TROLLING 4.) Keep it respectable and civil 5.) No new arguments in the last/4th round Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent Structure- R1- Acceptance only R2 - Each side provides their claims R3 - Rebuttals R4 - Closing Arguments The burden fo evidence will be shared equally for I have to prove it No new arguments in the last/4th round Failure to follow these rules will result in the automatic loss of my opponent Structure- R1- Acceptance only R2 - Each side provides their claims R3 - Rebuttals R4 - Closing Arguments The burden fo evidence will be shared equally for I have to prove it is caused by humans and Con has to prove it's caused by natural aspects. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thanks opponent for a nice argument. i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them. Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable. This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing. Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation point If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win. Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already.
Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.
There are negatives to the action which I believe outweigh the potential environmental benefit. For example, Picking your nose with dirty fingers or fingernails may increase risks of infection. In very rare cases a person may suffer from rhinotillexomania which For example, Picking your nose with dirty fingers or fingernails may increase risks of infection. In very rare cases a person may suffer from rhinotillexomania which is an addiction of picking your nose which, In turn, Causes anxiety. Additionally, Frequent or repetitive picking can damage your nasal cavity. Regular nose-picking may damage the septum and even cause a hole. If infection were to occur, It would cause even more energy to be used. A study found that whilst fighting an active infection (worse than the destruction of snot), A 175lb man would need 250 calories in order to have an effective immune system. This would amount to a tiny amount of food in real terms, Making the ecological impact minuet. Sources: British Society for Immunology (https://www. Immunology. Org) Faculty of Medicine at the University of Queensland, Australia (https://medicine. Uq. Edu. Au) US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health National Center for Biotechnology Information (https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/)
The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
The beneficial effects are slight, and confined to the predominantly wealthy cooler developed countries. By contrast, any rise in temperatures will lead to devestating damage to hot countries around the equator which are almost all relatively poor developing countries. Not only do the harms massively outweigh any benefits, the harms hurt those worst off, the benefits those who are already the wealthiest and safest countries on the planet.
Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real
I will begin with a few statistics and quotes from experts showing, unequivocally, that global warming has occurred. I will then move on to show that this effect is largely a result of human actions, technology, and the like. Next, I will provide quotes and sources specifically stating that the current level(s) of global warming could not be results of natural causes. Finally, I will address some of the arguments Pro is likely to make. I will point out that, at least in the past, he/she references sites such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", sources known to be some of the most biased that exist. On the other hand, the sources I reference are scholarly, scientific, and largely non-partisan. As the BoP is on Pro and he/she stated "man-made global warming isn't real", he/she will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and refute all counter-claims on this topic) that none of the global warming that has occurred has resulted from human action. If even some of it has resulted from human action, it would, by definition, be "real". Global Warming Occurring - "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. - The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. - Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. - Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier. - Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century. - The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. - The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. - Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 - "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can." - Stephen Hawking - Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years. Sources: https://climate.nasa.gov... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009). http://nsidc.org... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov... http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu... IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Humans Are (at least partially) To Blame - "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. - "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment - "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA - "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5 - "Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth - "Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University - "Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life Note: Some of these conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities. Current Levels of Global Warming Not Natural - "If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies - "Volcanoes have a short-term cooling effect on the climate due to their injection of sulphate aerosols high into the stratosphere, where they can remain aloft for a few years, reflecting incoming sunlight back into space." - Zeke Hausfather - "Finally, solar activity is measured by satellites over the past few decades and estimated based on sunspot counts in the more distant past. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun fluctuates modestly on a cycle of around 11 years. There has been a slight increase in overall solar activity since the 1850s, but the amount of additional solar energy reaching the Earth is small compared to other radiative forcings examined. Over the past 50 years, solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined slightly, while temperatures have increased dramatically." - Carbon Brief - “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Potential Pro Argument Based on Pro's past debates on this subject, I know he/she is likely to make following arguments: "https://goo.gl...;Sorry, you were saying..." Many people debate the validity of this statistic/image, but we can put that aside. Global warming is about the long-term trend, not a single year-over-year increase in the size of a particular ice sheet. So, even if this is accurate, it is in no way sufficient in disproving the litany of sources cited above stating the long-term trend. Here is a Forbes article directly speaking to statistics of this nature: https://goo.gl... As stated above, Pro's other arguments often rest on sources such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", a few of the least reliable, least scientific, least objective sources in the world. I would point voters to the much more reputable, scientific, and unbiased sources I have used in my arguments.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
First screw you and condescending snot nosed attitude towards me in defining climate, green house gasses and the green house effect. I don't have a problem with any of those definitions they are all naturally occurring things that enable the earth to have an atmosphere. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com...... So lets see CORNELIA DEAN a columnist at the N.Y. Times who is such a crappy and incompetent reporter who so lazy that she cant even provide a source for the claim she makes in this article or even the name of the institution or names of scientists who provided the information. Let me let you in on something. You are going to have to provide peer reviewed research done by peer reviewed scientists in order to use it as a source. I have been ridiculed and chastised for not doing so and you will be to. There is no way for me to verify this information and who did the research. I will allow you to come up with another source that meets peer reviewed credentials in the next round. But for now it is a worthless source. "Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature." Please provide your source that proves there is a direct relationship between Co2 and rises in temps. "Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate "http://news.mongabay.com...... Sorry but this is a blog and is worthless as a source. It is not peer reviewed. "The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen." Again, what is your source. "Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insulation power".http://www.terranature.org...... Another blog, again a worthless source. "We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature". What is your source. "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". This is an opinion "Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back." This is an opinion Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates). Please provide source "Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation." I don't have a problem with this statement although a "die hard enviromentalist" being for nuclear energy sounds like an oxymorn to me. "Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable." When you provide peer reviewede sources where indicated I will glady respond to each and every one. You must at the very least provide the scientits name or names so I can veryfy who they are and what their credtials are. I'm sorry but what's exspected of me should also be expected of you. I have had to many debates on this subject and have learned my lesson, now it's your turn.
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
My apologies for the forfeit, my ability to devote time to a strictly recreational activity is limited, but I would like to continue the discussion in the forums where time-limits are not as dire. I will not introduce any new arguments in the final section, but I am going to dismiss Pro's concluding statements. Pro continues to maintain that "no one" can stand behind GCC. I provided an extensive list of the world's foremost relevant institutions, and they all stand behind GCC as good science. I do not wish to dilute this point in rhetoric, so I will leave it be. Our fossil fuel resources need not be wasted as Pro insists; there are other uses for it, after all. Perhaps China will not use us as an example, per se, but at the very least it would bring us out of the "complete hypocrite" position. We cannot make any headway as long as we are part of the problem. Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed" - that seems to strengthen my position, doesn't it? His skepticism about climate modelling doesn't seem to be shared by the scientific community, so what exactly makes him smarter than the world's scientists? His Gieger counter analogy is unconvincing, as it clearly doesn't reflect, analogously, the GCC policy scenario. A more convincing analogy would involve efforts to curb production of radioactive substances, not the proliferation of tracking mechanisms thereafter. Pro goes into internal politics with NASA to discredit their conclusions, and claims they have "lost all credibility." Pro's claims are conspiratorial in nature; he seems to indicate that political entities are putting biased people in key positions to influence the scientific literature they produce. This "Climate-Gate" tactic is all that the right-wing has left to battle the overwhelming amount of research coming out in favor of GCC. They cannot defeat the scientific community, so they simply discredit them in the eyes of the public. Since scientists are by nature powerless, their "consensus" is moot and nothing that they propose gets done. Pro criticizes my sources, which are in complete harmony with what any scientific institution or university would maintain, yet uses laughable sources himself. Wattsupwiththat.com? Alex Jones? What is this stuff? The good sources he does use are mostly just to either quote the pro-GCC community or to make indirect points to base external conclusions off of (e.g., citing how much was spent on AIDS). He rebuts my plant evolution argument by referencing a wiki page which says nothing about plants not being able to adapt to Earth's C02 levels in time (would any person actually believe that plants are mal-adapted to their biological environment?). He insists he's quoted "literally hundreds" of articles, but to that I would only reiterate his point that consensus does not yield truth. In my case, at least my consensus is that of the respected scientific community.
Man made climate change is a myth
The science is open
Man made climate change is a myth
Science is self correcting
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
"Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns" Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any. Yes, there are those who believe that Science is all about hype, and they have done things like, scaring people about the MMR Immunisation (http://www.badscience.net...). Why do they do this? Simply, it makes them money. In my opinion, this is exactly the same thing happening in Climate Science these days. The movement supporting AGW is pulling in Billions, if not Trillions of dollars: for research (employment), for mitigation (legislation, taxes), and for advocacy groups (you know, to get the word out). Supporters of AGW don't really have much to stand on, yet, they continue on with the forecast of "doom and gloom" and the "end of the world". Looking at our short history in the United States, we have seen this before, with Religions: "10 Times The World Was Supposed To End And Didn't", http://www.businessinsider.com... Secondly, I believe 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. Essentially, by ignoring every argument put to him, claiming the great many of them are "logical fallacies" of one flavor or other, Mr. Merrill has employed logical fallacies of his own; a subtle form of ad-hominem, and "Staying on Message" (he is hoping that repeating the AGW mantra will be convincing, which may be why he does not include any further information with his assertions). His defense also smacks of the "Blind Loyalty" fallacy. Regardless, I will stick to the facts, and if I have space, I will deal with his accusations, or as many as I can within the limits placed upon us in this forum. Atmospheric CO2: True, this is a concern of AGW advocates. The problem is, it isn't a real problem. Any view that takes into account only the last 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 years is a "short sighted view", and ignores much of the evidence that tells us about the "normal" or "optimal" state of this planet. To assume that we can somehow stave off a natural warming cycle is simple arrogance. Further problems with Mr. Merrill's argument can be shown in what happens when you apply higher CO2 concentrations to plant life: http://www.nature.com... http://www.climatecentral.org... http://www.theresilientearth.com... http://dailycaller.com... Remember the economist, Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, to say "the science is settled"? Well, it isn't. We still have scientists arguing whether the CO2 increases happen BEFORE the warming, or AFTER. That is a pretty significant question, one that seems to be ignored by the IPCC and other AGW activists. We always hear the CO2 concentrations are causing the Earth to heat up, but if the HEAT really happens BEFORE the increase in temps, it kind of deflates that assumption. http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://icecap.us... http://www.nature.com... http://joannenova.com.au... Just because we think, as our ancestors of old, that WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (or the most important life-forms on the planet), doesn't make it so, and reality must be considered at some point. There are events out there that could cause the extinction of the Human Race: meteor, super volcano, nuclear war... Only ONE of those do we actually have control over. (Well, we might be able to "shoot down" a meteor ... maybe... ) Realistically, we must look at EVERYTHING that the Earth offers us. ALL temperature extremes, ALL variables. We know man has survived some of those extremes for the last 200,000 years... without benefit of the "industrialization" and "pollution" (CO2) that is supposedly causing the same thing to happen today as has been happening our whole history. (the dust bowl, 100 year floods, storms, droughts, etc...) Looking back, we don't see "man made CO2" at the same levels they are today in the 1600s, or the 1700s... so what caused these phenomena? What caused the Little Ice Age? Or the Medieval Warm Period? http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com... Interestingly, the name of the warm period about 6,000 years ago was called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Any guess why they call it "optimum"? http://en.wikipedia.org... This leads me to ask: 1) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the temperature of this planet. 2) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the CO2 concentration of our Atmosphere. 3) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing Sea Level. What is "normal", what is "optimal"? At what temperature is this earth, its ecosystems, and climate at their "best"? If we don't have an answer, there is no way to know what "abnormal" is. There is NO BASELINE from which we can judge. Atmospheric Ozone: Interestingly, every "doom and gloom" scenario brought about by AWG Climate Alarmists concerning CO2 has failed under scrutiny. The CO2 levels are INCREASING, yes, and the Temperatures have flat-lined. Increasing CO2 levels, and increasing Biomass in both the Oceans and on Land. Increasing CO2 levels, yet the Ozone Layer is recovering. http://www.esa.int... This is one of those "good arguments". It shows how science actually SHOULD work; as a solution, not a problem. Scientists identified the problems with the depletion of OZONE. They identified and defined a cause. We came to know and understand what was depleting the Ozone Layer. And, via the Montreal Protocol, Scientists worked to outline a way to fix it. Other areas, like CO2 levels in our atmosphere, aren't so well understood. Yet, today's scientists want to impose all kinds of restrictions, etc, in the same way as they did with Ozone, via the Kyoto Protocol, but without having a full understand of the CAUSE of the supposed warming we are experiencing. The Establishment has a mantra, "its all man-made", and they repeat it, often. Yet, there is very little evidence to support that position, unless you ignore HISTORY. In which case, you engage in a HUGE logical fallacy; Questionable Cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com... Oceanic: Mr. Merrill tries to call my pointing at the arctic and antarctic ice increase as a "logical fallacy". The problem? We have been told for years by AWG alarmists that the arctic ice is melting and will soon be gone. We have also been told that the arctic is disappearing, and with it, the Polar Bear. Anyone can pull the youtube videos, news reports, etc, that show how the Climate Alarmists have been using the logical fallacy, Appeal to Fear, to try to get us to "fall in line" and support the Establishment in their agenda driven science. What I have done by pointing out the growth in the ice sheets, is show that there is nothing new. Things are NORMAL. In the latest report, http://nsidc.org... , we see the Ice Sheet is currently within the standard deviation. It is NORMAL. AWG alarmists tried to use the Polar Bear by using the fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, along with the Appeal to Fear. Polar Bears are, after all, so very "cute". There are problems with the politicizing of Global Warming... we can see it here: http://polarbearscience.com... Something else to consider, with the past history of our planet, and the warm periods, including the aforementioned Holocene Optimum, how on earth did Polar Bears survive? Why aren't they extinct? If our simple warming, today, is enough for AWG alarmists to foretell their demise, why did they not die out when it was 4c warmer than it is today? They seem to have survived at least one but maybe 2 or more of these warm periods where arctic ice was all but gone. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This, again, shows a logical fallacy of Questionable Cause used by AWG alarmists. Real scientists have found the problem affecting the Polar Bear, (it wasn't climate change), it was MAN. They came up with laws and accords to help protect the Bears, and now their numbers are increasing (overall). Further, looking into the "storage of heat" in our oceans, the scientists are, again, baffled by the surprising lack of heat they seem to be storing. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... CO2 concentrations do rise in the Oceans, and so does the Biomass: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nature.com... http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... Another issue is the lack of proof for the deep ocean heat retention, and the lack of historic information. To make any speciulations with so little information is disingenuous at best. http://wattsupwiththat.com... And all "conclusions" made, so far, are "inconclusive". http://judithcurry.com... Alas, no space to deal with Mr. Morrell's fallacious avoidance tactics using fallacies.
The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change
I would like to thank my opponent for starting this wonderful debate topic. I know it is an issue he and I are both very passionate about, though on opposing sides and I look forward to a wonderful debate with lots of information over the next three rounds. Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent. He claims "[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." This could not be further from the truth. In point of fact, there is little to no evidence that global warming is caused by humans. A random statement, such as, "Pigs on mars are blue" cannot be stated and then give the burden of proof to the opposing side and request that they are the ones who provide proof that you are wrong. This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true. So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. My opponent continues by saying "Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans..." and once again, I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently. For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic (http://www.treehugger.com...). A main claim by global warming supporters is that this ice is melting due to global warming, so if it is now freezing, has global warming ended?! I find it to be important to be clear on this point, global warming caused by humans has not yet been proven. Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact. I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million. If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable. I understand that my opponent thinks taxes will fix the problem. While taxes on shopping bags and businesses could limit the way they they practice, it is by no means a guarantee. Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are? Absolutely. So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly? Or should they continue to increase taxes higher and higher on those who don't comply until they finally submit? When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem. Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org...) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy. In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world. So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not? I cannot stress strongly enough, without clear proof from the opposition, American citizens not be singled out and punished any more than they already are. And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us". I don't find this to be the place for such tactics, surely not for something so unproven, but maybe that's just me.
Global Warming is real, get over it.
"Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'." 1/3 of degree in 150 years actually. And you know why? Krakatoa, that big volcano in the Pacific, exploded in the 1600s, and this spewed ash into the air. Soon afterwords, global temperatures plummeted, drastically. (History Channel) Obviously a drastic rise is needed to counteract that sudden drop. "I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk...; GISS is probably the most accurate temperature collection agency in the world. They monitor the southernmost temperature collection system in the world, at least that has been keeping records for more than 100 years, and the average rate of change at that temperature station has been -.1 degrees Centigrade. The data that most proponents of GW cite is simply the rate of change between the first point of data, and the most recent. However, that is a statistically incorrect method of analyzing data. Go to NASA if you want to find GISS, or read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, he has the link in the appendix. "The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works." http://en.wikipedia.org... Graph of global temperatures since 450000 years ago. Notice the current temperatures are by no means anomalous. "I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it." Anomalies in long term temperature changes, upper atmosphere temperature shifts, need I say more? My opponent dropped my points that the upper atmosphere has stayed constant in temperature, contrary to what the greenhouse effect would produce if it were causing warming, the fact that greenhouse gases have not increased significantly enough to change temperatures, and that current temperatures are not anomalous.
