args

Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

Thank you, Con, for accepting this debate so quickly. I would like to begin my rebuttal of the three main counterarguments made in my opponent's last round. 1. Global Warming is real and a threat As I recall, in my opening round I never proclaimed that there was global warming; merely that there is rapid changes in the Earth's climate as never before documented or noticed in geological records. There is a definite warming in specific parts of the world, [1] but there are also other areas with the same -- or even colder -- temperatures as when weather recording began in the U.S.A. in 1869. [2] Climate change is not only occurring, according to many scientific studies, but will be a threat if these trends continue. My opponent says that the temperature has not risen since 1995, and all months since have been colder on average. This statement is valid. However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years [3], as well as droughts that will soon rival the Dustbowl of the 1920s (which was a major factor in the Great Depression). [4] As for the possible benefits of climate change, this massive release of CO2 may, in the short term, bring benefits to organisms that undergo photosynthetic processes, but we must remember that more than carbon dioxide is released through the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon, for example, provided 33% of America's energy needs in 2011 [5]. The maximum thermodynamic efficiency of this fuel source in the common steam-turbine is only 35%. Heat is wasted, and adding more heat may increase the efficiency of combustion, but it continues to produce more waste heat and requires even more input energy, raising the output energy by a maximum of 5%. [6] To save time, I will only discuss air pollutants of coal burning. Over 20 toxic impurities are released through this process, including arsenic, lead, mercury, and fly ash. [7] 2. Humans are the cause of global warming climate change* There are many ways to prove either side of this point. Geological evidence shows that there have been shifts in the Earth's mean temperature many times. The most notable being that of the Carboniferous era from 359.2 (± 2.5) m.y.a. (1*) to 299 (± .8) m.y.a. This era had an atmospheric content of 1,173 ppm (2*), which spurred plant growth unrivaled by any other era. [8,9] However, this change in carbon content took millions of years, and is actually a decrease from any previous time. During this time, the mean temperature in the Cambrian Era fell from 21 degrees centigrade to 14 degrees centigrade, which shows a correlation between carbon content and average temperature. [10] Now that I have shown the connection between atmospheric carbon and temperature, allow me to refute Con's argument. Not only is the planet being filled with more atmospheric carbon faster than ever before, but it can only continue to worsen as the ice caps laden with carbon dioxide and methane melt. [11] This additional CH4 and CO2 will increase the pace of ice melt, releasing more gas. These ice caps would naturally melt on their own terms, but not as quickly as they currently are. The rapid nature of this melt is set off by humans adding tons of gases each year to the atmosphere that trap heat, and melt the ice. Human induced climate changes also change the temperature of the air and water that flows to the poles, hindering the ability to create seasonal ice in the first place. [12] We must also remember that this post-wartime economic boom was based in industry, not in the fact that there was a sudden release of CO2. This boom was man made, in the fact that people owed us money, and we had all the goods we could need (for the time being). 3. It should be stopped--specfically with green energy As of today, we cannot just drop all our fossil fuel consumption. It may be at least two more decades before we can have a 50-50 split between cheap renewable energy and fossil fuel combustion. In the last 10 years, however, we have made many strides forward in the efficiency. My opponent's points are accurate, but we do not currently need to rely soley on renewable energy so we do not, as consumers, need to worry about the inefficiency of the current sources. Within the next few years we will be up to par with our dream energy production, but until then the best a normal person can do to acheive this goal is push for legislation to mandate cleaner sources and support current research. To give up on these new sources now would be illogical, and prove our years of prior research to have been frivilous. In Conclusion: I have rebutted all of my opponent's points which were based on interperatable data and sources, in effect, proving that Climate Change is a threat, it is aided in growth by humans, and we can stop it with more efficient energy. Thank you. [1] http://www.climate-charts.com... [2] http://www.nws.noaa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] "Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation". Electric Power Annual with data for 2008. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 21 January 2010. Retrieved 7 November 2010. [6] "Fossil Power Generation". Siemens AG. Retrieved 23 April 2009. [7] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. [8] Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521786738. [9] Cossey, P.J. et al (2004) British Lower Carboniferous Stratigraphy, Geological Conservation Review Series, no 29, JNCC, Peterborough (p3) [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] Thompson, Elvia. "Recent Warming of Arctic May Affect Worldwide Climate". Nasa.gov. Retrieved 2 October 2012. [12] http://www.epa.gov... (1*) m.y.a.- Million Years Ago (2*) ppm- Parts Per Million

The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

Outline I. Intro II. Man made Co2 Causes warming III. Humans > money IV. Conclusion V. Sources I. Intro Harrytruman thank you for accepting the debate. It takes courage to challenge the status quo. First, lets examine why you most likely think climate change is fake. You have probably been fooled by professional deceivers. [0] People who can convince you that cigarettes are safe. Greenpeace has shown that the Koch brothers are secretly funding these deceivers. [1] The corporate funding effect is potent. [2][3] Corporations have been known to fund research which ends up producing results in favor of the corporation. II. Man made Co2 Causes warming Now, I will prove that Anthropic climate change is real. First the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real. [4] The main argument that deniers use is reverse causality between Co2 and temperature. First, let's look at the ridiculousness of this claim, that scientists some how overlooked the possibility of reverse causality. Second, I will prove that Co2 causes temperature to rise. [5] We know this due to Milankovitch cycles. The Earth tilts raising temperatures, which causes the oceans to release Co2. The Co2 then warms the Earth further. Also, we know this due to the ocean's acidity. The acidity of the ocean is increasing, showing more Co2 is going into the ocean than out. [6] III. Humans > money I have proven that man made climate change is real. Now to your claim that we would suffer economic loss. First, you never estimated how much we would lose nor linked to any outside sources. Second, how does economic loss compare to losing the possibility of losing the entire human race? Human race > money. Bill Nye shows that terrorists groups are using water shorages caused by climate change to recruit. The pentagon views climate change as a threat. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. [7][8][9] IV. Conclusion We need more information, to get this information we need to conduct an experiment. The best way to conduct this experiment is to dramatically lower Co2 levels. Thanks for debating. V. Sources 0. https://thinkprogress.org... 1. http://www.greenpeace.org... 2. http://nutritionfacts.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://iopscience.iop.org... 5. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8. http://www.nytimes.com... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...

Better ways to fight climate change than geoengineering

Lisa Hymas. "We need birth control, not geoengineering." The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; The Ghink Chronicle. Grist. April 6th, 2010: "Most green groups don't like to talk about all this -- population has become the third rail of the environmental community (more on that in a future post). Technologists don't like to either -- they'd rather talk about traveling-wave nuclear reactors and CO2-sucking machines and space sunshades. We do need to explore and invest in cleantech options; climate change is serious enough that it requires all of our best efforts in all arenas. But it may be that many of the technologies with the most potential for averting climate change already exist -- the Pill, the condom, the IUD. We just need to spread them far and wide. Baby stroller crossed-out in greenGINK: green inclinations, no kidsBetter still, providing contraception to women who lack it is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a metric ton, while achieving that same reduction with the leading low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32, according to a recent study by the London School of Economics [PDF], commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust."

Administration issues dire climate change report, amid regulatory push

The Obama administration fueled its push for energy regulations with a massive new report Tuesday, linking climate change to extreme weather across the country and warning of more climate disruption if the nation doesn't change its ways.

The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of all i would like to define the word climate change.climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.it may be a change in average weather conditions or in the distribution of weather around avarege conditions.my main point on this issue is that climate change comes before the global economy so the world should focus on climate change.because if we do not focus on climate change it means that our land will be affected.e.g what if we have things such as global warming?that will be a case of one country but the world as whole will be affected.i would like to give you a very good axample by one country.let it be Zimbabwe.if there is global warming in Zimbabwe that means Zimbabwe can not produce the products it was manufacturing before because we manufacture products from raw materials.the country will have to depend on the other countries.that means there is no state income for that country.that is a process ,the economy that you were focusing on it start to decline.that will force you to go back and come with ways of ending global warming.because the economy of a country is sustained by the primary sector.how can you plant your seeds without the ground?and now where is people those are living in that country?is poverty not there?some firms will be closed up and people will be unemployed

Mars reveals more to scientists about climate change

Buzz Aldrin. "Commentary: Let's aim for Mars". CNN. June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of June 23, 2009: "Exploring and colonizing Mars can bring us new scientific understanding of climate change, of how planet-wide processes can make a warm and wet world into a barren landscape."

Resolved: Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Contention I: "The economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries." Pro makes several highly unsupported conjectures in his C1. The main point is that government attempts to curb the effects of global warming would have negative effects on the economy. Among his conjectures include the arguments that EPA regulations would cause "a loss of jobs, impeding economic recovery and harming livelihoods" as well as "result in the loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars". Now besides the fact that Pro has neglected to source or substantiate his claims, his point would still fall moot if the effects of global climate change will be worse than the effects of environmental regulations. And scientific consensus supports this position, including the position of the European Academy of Science and Arts[1], the American Association for the Advancement of Science[2], the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[3], among several other scientific organizations. Contention II: "The Earth"s climate is always changing." This contention attempts to disprove the existence of man-made global climate change. There are a few problems with this point though. First, even if we were to concede that global climate change isn't man-made, that wouldn't change the existence of moral obligation on those able to do so if we take a utilitarian perspective i.e., global climate change could still pose a grave threat to humanity, thus provoking obligation to those who have the means to mitigate such effects. The second problem with this point is the fact that Pro has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims. He claims that "Anyone saying that we should reverse the effects of climate change are obviously misinformed and have no scientific background." What an incredible claim, considering "That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position."[4] The point is further corroborated by further studies, all available in Source 1. Contention III: "There is no moral obligation to mitigate climate change because nations are not moral entities." Pro's third and final contention rests on his conception of nations as non-moral entities. He makes two sub-points in regards to this contention: (a) he argues that a nation exists separately from the people that make them up and (b) with his assuming of ethical relativism in a societal context. I contend that neither of these points hold weight and that Pro is mistaken in his existential characterization of nations. (a) Pro's first mistake in his point is that he conceives nations as something distinct and separate from their individual parts i.e., their citizens. But try to conceive of a nation without citizens. It wouldn't exist. Nations only exist because a group of people come together to organize society. (b) Pro's second mistake lies in his application of ethical relativism. Even if we admit that morals are relative to individuals, Pro's point still fails in that he proves too much. For instance, if morals can only apply to people and not collective entities (assuming such things even exist), then we also can't apply moral criticism to any other collective entities, including corporations, interest groups, or even family households. The only way to overcome this obstacle is to dissolve the existence of collective entities or more than the sum of their parts. We can't apply moral duties to a nation, but we can apply those criticisms to the individual people who make them up. ===Sources=== [1] http://www.euro-acad.eu...; [2] http://www.aaas.org...; [3] http://www.grida.no...; [4] http://www.skepticalscience.com...

The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

Full topic: The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true or false is to dramatically reduce man made levels of Co2. We need to take drastic measures to reduce man made Co2 levels ASAP. I've become convinced of this due to the climate change deniers. Simply, put the climate change deniers are correct, there is not enough evidence. Therefore, we need to accumulate more evidence via experimentation. Thus far all we have done is endlessly discuss if climate change is real or false and collecting observation evidence. Empirical evidence is split into two grounds. A. Observation evidence B. Scientific experiments All I've seen is A, thus far. We need B, and we need to know soon. The only way I can imagine to test this theory of global climate change is via experimentation. We must take control and change a variable. I vote Co2 is the best variable. Now as Co2 as the variable we have two choices, to raise or lower Co2 levels. Considering it would be immoral to raise Co2 levels given the observation evidence, we can only lower Co2 levels. Since a small decrease in Co2 levels would be more difficult to determine, a large decrease in amount of Co2 produced by man made sources is the only solution. That way if climate change is caused by a confounding factor we will have a better chance of acknowledging that confounding factor and taking corrective actions. To recap, we need more evidence for whether or not climate change is true in the form of experimental evidence. Lowering man-made Co2 dramatically is the best and only moral option. Thanks for reading and accepting the debate in advance.