args

Man made climate change is a myth

The sun drives the global climate

Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

Dear audience, please excuse my opponent for his outrageous conduct. During this round, if anyone has been manipulated by the fiendish approach my opponent has set, I will set them straight in this round. REBUTTALS "My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change." This, Mr. Adams, is why I am concerned on your motives of conduct, if you are willing to stoop to such a low in this debate. I will quote what YOU said in the opening round, in which I agreed to and accepted. "PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists). CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. " You have lost this debate, because you have admitted to C02 emissions factoring into global warming! You made a very poor mistake in doing this Mr. Adams. Next time, I advise you to pay closer attention to such things. ALL I have to do in this debate is to PROVE TO YOU THAT C02 EMISSIONS EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE! I have done this plenty of times, and can continue doing so as much as I please, because this is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN! "And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph." I must say, I laugh out loud when I read this. You must not have read your source very well, because it actually incriminates your point. And when you are called out on it, you say that it is FALSE! There, dear audience, you have heard it straight from my opponents own mouth. He is saying that the sources he has used in this debate are completely and utterly FALSE! Thus we cannot credit anything he has said in this ENTIRE debate, as apparently his sources all show mis-conducted information. This, however I already knew, and hopefully the audience did as well, given the vast amount of research and evidence I have shown you all strictly contradicting his evidence. "The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data." Let's keep in mind, that this is the graph from my OPPONENTS own source. That aside, this was cited within the source from the government site, that I listed above. My opponent is trying to dis-credit the carbon dioxide information analysis center of the information on c02 effecting the climate change. His basis for this is extremely unwarranted, and he provides absolutely no bearing of proof to back this claim up! He is basically filling his entire round with Fluff and nonsense, and I hope the audience understands this when reading the debate. "Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t." Except for it did! Your sources were wrong, you know they were wrong, and admit to them being wrong! So that must mean the information I provided proving that C02 emissions effecting global warming strongly in the past 10 years must be accurate. See all the graphs above. "And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures." Lol which one, pray, may I ask? Because I have shown 3-4 different graphs, statistics, and other outstanding information that proves that C02 DOES effect the climate. In fact you have too. Until you can dis-prove MY evidence with statistics, or graphs, mine holds the most priority at the moment. Next my opponent does some weird sketches on my graph. Again this is another attempt to manipulate the audience. He is saying that the graph DOESN'T show that C02 emissions effect the climate. If you look at the graph, you will see that as the C02 Emissions rise, so does the temperature. Especially within the last 20 years, that graph shows imminent temperature reports rising subsequently with the C02 emissions. "Every place I put a line is where correlation broke." Again, you are mis-understanding my goal in this debate. My goal is to prove that with the rise of C02 emissions, comes the rise of temperatures. Never once in the opening round did you say that I must prove that ONLY C02 emissions were a factor in global climate change. However, I HAVE proven that climate change does occur AS A RESULT of C02 emissions. That's it! That's all I needed to win this debate, as is CLEARLY defined by my opponent in R1! His continued pursuance of the opinion that C02 emissions do not effect the climate change very much, are blatantly going against his win condition for this debate. "My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point." Yes your source MAJORLY contradicts you and your goal in this debate. And your wrong, as it actually shows a major correlation between temperature rises and C02. " I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. " Listen. I DO NOT CARE. I never once said in this ENTIRE debate, nor did I have to, that C02 emissions were the only cause of global warming. I have proven that C02 emissions DO harm the environment. That much you CANNOT dis-agree with. Your conduct in this debate is superfluously appalling. Again, however, I would probably attribute that to your age. " My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate." Is that all you care about, is winning a debate based on a technicality? Despite the fact that I have PROVEN that C02 emissions are a huge factor in global temperature rising? Dear audience, my opponent attempts to ignore logic and valid information and is hoping to steal a win on the debate because of it, though he excused this in the beginning of his last round. The evidence is still there, it's still valid, and I do not care if you choose to ignore it. I will leave that up to the audience to decide. CONCLUSION My opponent has shown extremely poor conduct throughout this entire debate, and I hope the audience sees this as clearly as I have. My opponent attempts to ignore the light of all the evidence I have provided. He completely contradicts his own sources, which actually just help me out. I recommend the audience go through and read his source and find all the contradicting evidence he has to offer. My opponent says I have not upheld the burden of proof. If anyone buys this I strongly suggest they re-read that in which I have offered. I remain, that the evidence in R1 is still valid, and in R2, and none of it should be discounted on a technicality. I really hope for my opponents mental health, that he educates himself further on such subjects before starting debates on them. With that said, I strongly urge the voters to vote PRO. Thankyou.

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

Thanks for the debate Idaho_Rebel. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, has stated that climate change has major environmental, social, political, and economic consequences. The issue at stake in this debate, whether developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the consequences of climate change, is thus quite necessary. Pro Case 1. What are the potential "effects" of climate change? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reach 400ppm by 2017, if not earlier, making a rise in average global temperatures inevitable. It has been predicted that urban "heat island" effects (the result of rising temperatures) will result in the death of tens of thousands of people across the world. Other predictions include: high-intensity storms and flooding, causing property and infrastructure damage; droughts threatening food and water supplies; wildfires, desertification, and soil erosion destroying agricultural land, raising food prices, and leading to large-scale migrations; and rising sea levels, devastating low-lying coastal settlements (including many major cities). Source: IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation - http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de... 2. Why do "developed countries" have a moral obligation to mitigate these effects? The potential harms caused by climate change should be readily apparent, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there is some sort of obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change, regardless of which ethical precept is applied. For example, a utilitarian ethics (greatest good for the greatest number) is just as likely to recommend policies that mitigate the effects of climate change as a Kantian ethics (regarding the rightness of actions themselves). So then, the next question is: "who" carries the burden or moral obligation to curb the effects of climate change? The issue at stake here is one of responsibility: do particular governments have more responsibility than others? A reasonable principle to apply here would be the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle: the idea that everyone bears a responsibility to mitigate the effects of climate change, but those with the ability to pay have a greater burden to do so. We could apply other ethical principles, such as the idea of "intergenerational equity" (the debt to future generations) or "compensatory equity" (the debt to more socioeconomically vulnerable people). The conclusion of these principles suggests developed countries, who by definition are more advanced economically and technologically, have a greater burden to mitigate the effects of climate change than do currently developing countries. Con Case Re: "Contention 1" My opponent's argument, that the "economic impact of environmental legislation hurts the economies of developed countries," is flawed for two reasons. First, my opponent completely neglects the possibility of alternative mitigation proposals, some which might even have a positive effect on the economy. For example, the development of drought-resistant crops, storm-resistant housing, climate-resilient infrastructure, and secure food/water supplies could easily produce new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Indeed, there is no need to focus on CO2 emissions when other options exist. In low-lying coastal settlements, for example, we could build sea walls, which are not only cheaper but much more likely to protect than an energy tax. Second, my opponent's argument offers no reason to believe environmental legislation would hurt the economy. How would the EPA's national energy tax "kill jobs" and "stop economic growth"? How would it make "tilling a field" and "operating a feedlot" impossible? The only answer my opponent provides to these questions is "foreign competition." This fear is unfounded, however, because the EPA's regulations only apply to global industries (domestic industries would be unaffected since they all operate under the same restrictions). Moreover, since fossil fuels are already becoming more expensive relative to renewable sources, an energy tax would simply accelerate a transition to "green energy" that is already underway, including the retraining of carbon-intensive industries for "green jobs." The U.S. economy as a whole would remain competitive. Re: "Contention 2" The argument that humans are not responsible for climate change is irrelevant: assuming climate change is harmful to the well-being of humans, it would not matter who or what was responsible for the harm. The issue at stake in this debate is who is responsible for cleaning up the mess, not who is responsible for creating the mess. To clarify this point, consider Peter Singer's example of a child drowning in a shallow pond: do we have a moral obligation to rescue the child? Yes, we do. Now, suppose someone pushed the child into the shallow pond; does this fact suddenly absolve you of the moral obligation to rescue the child? No, it doesn't. The burden of mitigating the effects of climate change falls on humanity as a whole, with a greater burden placed on those who can better afford to pay for mitigation proposals. The issue of who is responsible for climate change is thus irrelevant. Re: "Contention 3" My opponent argues that "nations are not moral entities," so therefore the "idea that a country would have a 'moral obligation' is unethical on the basis of Ethical Relativism." The argument is not only entirely incoherent (how can something be objectively "unethical" on the basis of "Ethical Relativism"?), but its premises are flat-out wrong. The problem is that my opponent confuses descriptive ethics with normative ethics, taking the existence of different moral views (it is true that different individuals, cultures, and countries can have different moral doctrines) to establish the lack of a true morality that "nation-states ought to abide by." Just because a particular individual or nation believes their moral view is the right one does not make it right. A culture might practice slavery or cannibalism, but the fact they believe these practices ethical does not make itself make these practices ethical. If we employ an objective ethical framework, such as a utilitarian or deontological ethics which both make claims of universality and objectivity, then my opponent's argument is clearly misguided. But suppose we grant my opponent his claim of ethical relativism, that does not mean no ethical precept can be established. It simply means that, from our perspective, what is right is determined by what we believe. That does not mean what we believe is not a "standard ethical or moral policy." On the contrary, the whole point of ethical relativism is to establish that our morality is situated in our specific culture, and since our culture is one in which protecting the life and property of our citizens is of ethical importance, mitigating climate change is thus also important. The other point my opponent makes - that individuals, not nations, are moral entities - makes no sense. A country or government has the choice - rational free choice - to make decisions and affect the world, just like an individual. This simple fact makes a country a "moral entity," in the sense that my opponent uses the term. The distinction between individual and country does not hold up, because countries are simply the association of individuals for a specific purpose under a particular name. This allows countries to function in the same way as individuals, making them moral entities.

Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

The climate has not changed and if it did it wasn't caused by human activity. The people who first started the climate change nonsense were all communist dictators and criminals.

Climate change

As I have previously stated it is important for the relevance and quality of the debate that only the argument presented are analyzed. Referring to "Co2 theorists" or "deniers" only muddles the debate and brings irrelevant arguments to the debate. I refrained from bringing into the discussion questionable arguments or false evidence produced by "deniers". Had this debate been:"I believe that CO2 advocates are right" or "Deniers are wrong" rather than "GW is human-induced in a significant way" than Con's reference to Co2 advocates statements would have made sense. I have already stated that I will not get dragged into a discussion about advocates and deniers. I am only interested in Con's arguments and he should only be interested in mine. I also salute the fact that Con engaged in tackling the methods for proving false the human induced GW. In my previous speech I pointed out that there was consensus among scientists and that it is more probable that the scientists saying GW is human induced are right. Con had 2 attacks: there is not a large consensus and the consensus is not meaningful. Con first tried to prove that consensus is not meaningful and than that there is actually no consensus. This means that Con abandons his first contention that consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now prove that Con's argument further strengthens my position. First of all, Con only managed to prove marginal misconduct in the IPCC and not in other independent studies while I managed to link all of Con's sources to financers that have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. When evaluating proof, one test is the vested interest in the outcome of the debate [1]. Con conceded in his second speech that GW scientists have no vested interest. Furthermore I have proven a clear and foul initiative form the part of oil industry to deny climate change. Con did not answer to the allegations and proof I provided with this respect. What is more, if there are some scientists that can speak out for themselves and deny the "official position" it is highly improbable that the others will be dominated by the "bureaucrats" at the IPCC. Con did not provide any evidence of the interference of the IPCC interference in the research of GW scientist. Con also attacked all of my sources in block, without mentioning what source is not credible. To Con the Wikipedia articles are more biased than oil financed or oil directed science. This is highly improbable. With respect to the consensus argument Con first conceded that consensus is meaningful and I have proven that it is more probable that the human induced GW theory is not affected by vested interests or by interfering from outside sources. Con decided to address the "significant" term of this topic. I must point out that it was not until the third round that Con addressed the "significant" definition. Until this round Con chose to replace my statements with those of "advocates". When I stated that GW is caused in a significant manner by humans I have also provided the means to evaluate if this change is important. Con addressed some of them in the second round and attacked the idea of important enough to take action now. Con argument is nevertheless flawed as he proves that previous action was insufficient not that action must not be taken. Furthermore, Con decides to attack a specific course of action (cap and trade) when there are other means of combating Co2 emissions (i.e. taxes). While in this attempt EU failed to reduce emissions the basic idea should work as it has done in US when trying to curb So2 emissions. So if Con agrees to use this criterion too I should win this debate. We had previously agreed that there is global warming. Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented. In studying the past Co2 records Con pointed out that there can be no correlation between Co2 and global temperatures. I have shown that at the end of the period temperatures decreased and also Co2 levels decreased. The graph and phenomena presented by the article also point out a clear trend in the output and replacement of Co2. This imbalance of absorbed and emitted Co2 and also the positive feedback effect were never accounted for by Cons arguments. Even if at the scale of 600 million years there seems everything is ok, at the scale of 600 000 years Co2 has risen and h In the discussion about Venus and the Moon the basic idea was to observe simpler systems to determine the effects of Co2 in the absence of other factors that may complicate the analysis and hence the debate. I have provided evidence that shows that Venus is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the Sun. Con only attacked the relevance of my source. In this case I will quote sources [2] [3]. Also, I have shown that the Moon which is at basically the same distance from the Sun as Earth is on average much colder. The Moon doesn't have any Periodic Oceanic movement to explain this characteristic. According to the principle tertium non datur the only thing left is the lack of greenhouse effect. Per a contrario on planets with atmosphere (i.e. Earth) this effect can be shown to be significant. We have both agreed to compare Venus to Earth. Nevertheless Con provided proof that states that we must not compare Earth and Venus due to major differences. According to common procedures what has been agreed in a case by the parties is considered truth for the purpose of that case. I must further point out that the evidence presented doesn't explain why we must not compare Venus and Earth. It simply points out that the pressure on Venus is greater than that on Earth but it further analyzes Co2 effects based upon the quantity. The document presented also says that we can only project Co2 evolution by not taking into account the projected evolution of population since this is not science but sociology. This elementary wrong as we must try to improve our models by using all the available data (humans produce co2 – this is no rocket science). The article also concedes that even using it's optimistic projections Co2 will increase temperatures by 1.85 C. When analyzing Venus, Con calculated a + 150 C greenhouse effect. I have shown that the calculation is wrong since Con used the presumption that there is no greenhouse effect on Earth to complete his calculations. The actual temperature that should have been used in the calculations should have been 255 K for Earth with no greenhouse effect. The graph presented is just that: a graph of a logarithmic function. It is for illustrative purposes only. It shows what math already that the derivative of ln(x) is 1/x. The derivative shows the speed by which a continuous function "grows". 1/x has large values at the beginning and smaller as x increases. This means that the initial increases in Co2 have a larger effect than subsequent increases of Co2. Me, Con and the article agree on this point. However, neither Con's model, nor the one in the document explain the high temperatures on Venus. If for every 2 degrees we need to double the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere then for +150 C we would need a 2^75 increase (more than the amount on Venus) in Co2 to cause such an increase. This contradicts all the observed data of both Venus and Earth. It is more likely that the initial quantities of Co2 account for most of the effect and that most of the subsequent quantities cause smaller increases. Therefore most of the heating happens at the beginning. This heating is significant. I have used the same inverse method as the one used in the article presented by Con. It is both the Sun and Co2. The motion stands. [1] Preparing for legislative debate; Linda L. Oddo, Thomas B. McClain; P. 30 [2] http://hypertextbook.com... [3] http://www.universetoday.com...

Climate change is both real and a serious issue

My first source was just an example of the structure that should be used and is not part of my argument. You state that displacement will maintain the water levels. Water in its solid form is more dense than its liquid state. Therefore it takes up less space and by melting the ice caps the same amount of water would take up more room. Also there is a lot of the ice that is above sea level, the ice on top would melt and go into the ocean which increases the sea level. Get a graduated cylinder, fill it with water, and place a buoyant ball in. Measure the volume line of the cylinder, now push the ball entirely into the water and measure it again. You will notice that the volume line will increase. The same thing will happen with the ice melting into the ocean. You state that humans will raise the temperature by a couple of degrees. That has an incredible impact. In fact, that is what climate change believers are worried about. This couple of degrees will change the world and reduce the health of the biosphere.(http://www.motherjones.com...) The Industrial Revolution changed lives drastically, factories began to mass produce products, new tools allowed less farmers to create more food, and wealth inequality grew. This resulted in accelerated population growth and living condition improvements. A side effect was the demand for energy to power factories, trains, planes, ships, and to create electricity. Whether it was wood, coal, or oil, these energy sources when burned would release emissions that have been buried in the ground for millions of years. Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over 200 years we have increased the carbon footprint of the planet by 38%(1). This is increasing the global temperature which is resulting in: melting of the polar caps, ecosystem destruction, and is destroying our biosphere. Due to the excessive use of these energy sources we are also destroying the environment. Dumping trash and waste into the ocean and rivers of the world. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a dangerous cycle. Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and causes higher temperatures. Polar ice caps reflect huge amounts of sunlight, and because of the increased temperatures these caps are slowly melting away causing even more heat to stay in the Earth. Beneath the polar caps is home to millions of pounds of carbon dioxide that will be released furthering this cycle. This process is exponential and is almost impossible to restore back to its original state with current technology. With the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising, trillions of dollars in economies would be at jeopardy. Cities like New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, would be destroyed. These changes would also displace billions of people in the process(2). Life is very fragile for multi-celled organisms, a change in the organism's niche will wipe them out. This is because they are well adapted to the environment which makes them very dependent on it. Deserts are expanding, ocean reefs are disappearing, and forests are vanishing(3). These ecosystems are home to millions of different species and the rate of extinction is rising at an alarming rate(4). Food webs and season cycles are being disrupted which are incredibly important to the system. Temperature increases are affecting sea level and ocean temperature. This in turn is wrecking the ocean currents that deliver heat evenly and quickly all over the world as well as sustain billions of ocean organisms. Couldn't it be argued that those people against climate change are trying to further themselves. Oil and coal businesses would lose immense profits or go bankrupt if governments started to crack down heavily on the issue. Many government and educational sites are posting verifiable data on climate change.(1)http://climate.nasa.gov...(2)http://www.nationalgeographic.com...(3)https://www.epa.gov...(4)http://www.pbs.org... You have claimed that there was higher C02 concentrations during the Ordovician period and that flora and fauna was incredible. What soon followed suit was the largest mass extinction ever. The climate changed rapidly and the organisms that were best fit died off. This is why climate change is such a big deal. Yes, carbon emissions were much higher, however the suns solar output was incredibly low along with much larger ice caps to deflect more sunlight. In comparison, today we have a very high solar output and much smaller polar caps. Recent studies on the Ordovician period actually show that the carbon concentration was not as incredible as claimed (5). You brought in that people used to believe the world was flat. That is a common myth(6). The Earth is an oval and there are immense amounts of evidence to prove it. Yet people today still believe the Earth is flat(7). (5) https://skepticalscience.com... (6)https://en.wikipedia.org...# (7)https://theflatearthsociety.org...

Nations should work to prepare for climate change instead of preventing it.

To consider this resolution and evaluate both possible solutions a few things must be established. Firstly, the main value that both sides are defending is the value of human life. The common goal is saving the most possible humans. The pro side will be arguing that preparation is fundamental and necessary to achieve this while the con should be arguing that reducing the damage to the environment is enough. Before I lay out my arguments I would like to make one clarification: the pro side is not arguing that prevention is the ultimate solution. Instead, we will prove that it should be the immediate and necessary action. These are our reasons: 1. We will suffer the consequences of climate change. (It will rise above 2 C). The vast majority of scientists agree that a rise in the average temperature of the world above 2 degrees Celsius from before industrial levels will be extremely catastrophic to the human population. This is a very alarming fact because we have already risen 1 degree above these industrial levels, and from the current course we have set our industries on, it is virtually impossible to prevent going above 2 C. This means we WILL deal with the catastrophic damage of climate change! Now the question is what is the best solution to deal with these consequences such as extreme droughts, flooding, harsh storms, etc.? The solution proposed by the the opposition is completely inviable since switching to green energy or any other measure will not save the lives of the people whose house was washed away by floods or who do not have water to drink. I"m from Brazil and recently we have had the worst drought in 50 years. This made a many people realize the importance of the environment and start taking actions to help it, yet that did not solve the immediate problem. People still did not have water to live! Preparation was necessary and would have remediated the issue. This same logic can be applied to the rest of the world. We need to be prepared to face what is coming, and that is why it should be our main goal. 2. Not all nations will agree on preventing climate change; therefore, nations that do not prepare for its effects will be harmed. One example of this is China, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases, which has recently stated that it would not maintain its emission control pledges. As a result of that, it is inevitable that significant damage will occur due to climate change. It is nearly impossible to force countries like this to comply with climate change prevention measures; therefore, it would be more beneficial for the other nations to prepare themselves to the effects of climate change rather than spending trillions on trying to prevent it in vain. How can you ask a small country like the Maldives to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions when the sea is rising and destroying their cities? Even if they did agree to take these measures, because other countries like China don"t, the seas will continue to rise. Their main concern currently should be to prepare with the effects of this rise. 3. It would be illogical for a few countries to make the change to green technology because of the magnitude of capital investment in the oil & gas industry. The oil & gas industry is a billion dollar industry. Only in the time period 2009-13 more than 3000 billion dollars were invested in the oil & gas industry. It is needless to point out the huge negative effects the adoption of green technology would mean for the world economy. The results would be catastrophic and there would be no turning back. Thousands of people would lose their jobs and years of technological developments in the industry would be wasted. It would cost 44 trillion dollars to switch from fossil fuels to green energy. The cost of this is unviable. There are no investors willing to spend that much money on green technology. Logically, the costs would be split. However, given the profits the oil industry brings only a crazy person would spend on green technology. This once again demonstrates how prevention is completely impossible in our world and preparation is the best immediate solution. 4. If climate change prevention does not work, then mankind would have wasted all of its resources into something futile, and we would not be able to survive the effects of climate change. In order to change the ways of mankind now, we would have to change so many habits that have been ingrained in our society for decades, since the discovery of oil. How we run our factories, how we trade, change all of the packaging on foods, beauty products, even clothing. It is impossible to impede the productions of these items, since nowadays fossil fuels are present all around us. The keyboard you are typing on is made of plastic for example, the case around your phone is plastic as well. It is incoherent to assume that we can slow this process now, so instead of spending trillions on prevention methods that we are not certain can work (they haven"t until now), we must start thinking about the future, and preparing for the worst that can come. One of the largest mistakes that humanity makes is to begin something and not look deep enough into the future to know how to control that something. This is not a fatalistic view, it is a cautious one. For all these reasons, we are arguing that the preparation to deal with climate change should currently be valued above preventing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Arguing that suddenly changing the path we are on will happen and is viable is thinking of a utopian world. It is a completely inviable solution. The main goal of nations should be to prepare, and later, when the mentality concerning climate change starts to shift, prevention can be discussed.