args

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

CO2 1. CO2 is an odourless and colourless gas. It has properties similar to glass, In that it can reflect some heat radiation. CO2 is also limited in its reflection of radiation in the same manner that glass is limited. Like glass, Is ceases to reflect heat radiation after it reaches its saturation point. In the case of glass - glass which is 2 feet thick will retain or reflect the same amount of heat that which a 1/4 inch glass will reflect. In the case of CO2, Will reach it's saturation point at around 80 parts/ million. Thereafter, CO2 will not reflect any further heat radiation. Therefore, The alarmists nincompoops who keep telling us to not to burn coal so as to avoid increasing the CO2 don't know or understand what the properties of CO2 really are. The main arguments about the cause of global warming concern CO2 as being the main culprit. Yet, The real science doesn't agree with this knee jerk type layman science that we hear from the media. My opponent will say that thousands of scientists agree with climate change principles. This is only because their careers depend on it. It they disagreed with climate change they would find themselves being black listed and unemployed. Thus, It is very unlikely that you will hear any scientist disagree with climate change. 2. Mass relationship with human body and machine weight, Verses Earth size and weight. If you compare the mass and weight of the Earth and compare that mass with the total mass and weight of humans and their machines you will find that the differential ratio is trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions x trillions to one. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that humans give out it will always be totally insignificant in relation to the size and mass of the Earth. The laws of physics and heat dissipation in relation to mass tell us that humans just can't affect the global climate of the Earth because humans are way too insignificant and small in relation to the size of the Earth. To put this into the correct perspective - humanity represents 3 grains of sand on a beach while the Earth represents the remainder of the beach. Thus, It doesn't matter how hot those 3 grains of sand get because they are never going to make the rest of the beach any hotter. 3. Government created invisible monsters. Corona virus, Climate change, World War I, World War II, Spanish flu, Holes in the ozone layer, Sars, BSE, Influenza, Ebola, Polio, Zika, HIV, Hong Kong flu, Dengue fever and swine flu. These are all propaganda exercises to make money out of gullible fools. There is only one human disease which is vitamin deficiency disease. The world did not enter a new human caused ice age in the 1970's as predicted by all the world governments. The two world wars were securing oil in Iraq and not about freedom. Ebola, BSE, Zika and Polio are about pesticides and are not about viruses. Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them.

First World countries have the moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

===Definitions=== First world countries will refer broadly to the U.S., Canada, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and most European countries such as the UK, France, Denmark, and Spain. These countries are differentiated from third world countries by their relative wealth and well being of their citizens. To have a moral obligation implies that one has some legitimate moral duty or a legitimate requirement to take others into consideration under certain conditions. This would be predicated on some conception of right and wrong. ===Framework=== The ethical standard by which I propose to hold the resolution to will be standard utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist normative philosophy which supports actions which result in overall happiness, or "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" of people. Under utilitarianism, one's ethical duties will stem from whether they are capable of performing actions to bring about net happiness or to reduce the amount of unhappiness. My contention will be that (a) climate change has negative effects in regards to human happiness and (b) that first world countries alone have the ability to mitigate these effects, thereby imposing an obligation to do so. Contention I. The Reality of Climate Change I'll try to be brief in detailing the causes and effects of global warming. I'm not a scientist or by any measure an expert on the topic though so bear with me. The basic line of thought goes that rising CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to trap heat which in turn causes more energy to become trapped in the atmosphere then is being released back out to space. This all causes the planet's total heat to increase. Empirical evidence for rising CO2 emissions on the planet[1], the causal relationship between this and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere[2], and the empirical evidence for a rising global temperature[3] is all available and provides conclusive evidence for the reality of climate change. Contention II. Negative Effects of CC on Humanity Some may allow for the existence of climate change while still denying that it will bring about any cataclysmic effects. However, scientists at the Department of Energy and Climate Change at the Met Office released a study predicting a global temperature rise of 4C within the next 50 or so years without actions taken to reduce climate change. The effects of such a rise would surely be catastrophic. Such a rise would threaten numerous animal species, raise water levels which would negatively effect coastal areas, and threaten a large portion of the water supply[4]. Contention III. The Position of FWC to Mitigate such Effects It should be prima facie acceptable that those countries which are better off and have access to a larger amount of resources and international trade as first world countries are would be in a much better position to mitigate the effects of climate change. Lower developed countries more than likely lack the resources to stop the process of global warming even if they didn't have more looming problems to deal with. Furthermore first world countries (especially the U.S.) are in a special position in regards to CC since it is those first world countries that are responsible for up to 48% of global CO2 emissions[5]. Since this is the case, policies or measures taken to reduce those emissions would be better and more easily handled by the U.S. and other developed countries. ===Conclusion=== As we can see, from a utilitarian perspective, the U.S. and other first world countries have an obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Not only is climate change a looming threat which threatens the well being of millions of people, but it is in large part through the actions of first world countries that CO2 emissions are so high in the first place. It is clear that leaving the responsibility for mitigating climate change to poorly developed or developing nations is an unsatisfactory solution since they have a smaller share in the ultimate cause of the problem and because they lack the necessary resources and international pull to accomplish such a task. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro. ===Sources=== [1] http://zfacts.com... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com... [3] http://www.pnas.org... (Figures 1 & 5 seem most relevant) [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://epa.gov... (Sec. Emissions by Country)

Scott Brown, Cory Gardner Shift Stance On Climate Change In First Senate Debates

Republican Senate candidates Scott Brown and Cory Gardner on Monday embraced the notion that climate change is caused in part by human activity, despite previously expressing skepticism that man-made climate change is real. Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to unseat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, while Gardner, a congressman from Colorado, is looking to defeat Sen. Mark Udall in that state. Both Senate races, regarded as unexpectedly competitive for Democrats, had debates on Monday -- the first for New Hampshire candidates, the second for Colorado. In both,...

Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

Warming is beneficial Con does not dispute that warming is beneficial, and claims that what should be of concern is the rate of warming. Con offers no evidence that the rate of warming is important, he merely asserts that it is. Global temperature records have only been kept for about 130 years. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Before that, temperature reconstructions are so coarse and uncertain that a claim about rates is pure speculation. Con's source for the speculation is a journalist without scientific credentials. The EPA, referencing the IPCC, contradicts Con explicitly. “Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age.” [16. http://www.epa.gov... ] Con claims that in the past, changes in CO2 were always biogenic and slow. He offers no evidence of that (e.g. volcanoes), and it's irrelevant. He didn't claim harm from rapid CO2 change, only temperature change. Con says he does not believe plants are relatively starved for CO2. My assertion was supported by a reference giving hundreds of studies proving my point, whether it's from evolution or not. A table of experiments in which CO2 levels are artificially increased by about 75% shows that growth usually increases by 25% to 50%. [17. http://www.co2science.org... ] It's only been 11,000 years since the last ice age. The time scale of plant evolution is millions of years, not thousands. [18. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Those who make the climate models agree they failed. "... articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability." [19. http://online.wsj.com... There are four main sources of global temperature data, two from satellites and two from ground stations. Three of the four agree that the last decade has shown cooling. The outlier is NASA, who keeps adjusting past data to make the world warmer. The satellite data is far more trustworthy because is doesn't suffer from a lack of stations in remote areas and it doesn't suffer from the excess warmth of heat islands in developed areas. The satellites show cooling as does the HADCru data compiled in England. Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the decade trend. The summer of 2009 was the coldest on record [20. http://www.prisonplanet.com... ] Since global temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, we would expect recent years to be among the warmest. Nonetheless, temperatures are way below what the CO2 climate models predict, so the models are invalid. The reference plotted the original data sources, and whether the site is biased or not, the data correctly shows the models were invalid. The story of an anomalous year works for a year of two, but not for a whole decade, especially when climate crisis advocates have claimed that they have accounted for everything that could possibly affect climate, Hansen's predictions are wildly at odds with the IPCC report and climate models, which are now known to be too extreme. Hansen says the oceans will rise by 25 meters, while the IPCC says nine inches. Temperatures have risen at the rate of about 1 degree per hundred years until now, so we are seeing the record highs for the hundred years. However, 1 degree per hundred years is not a problem either by temperature directly or rate of increase. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. I claimed that restrictions on fossil fuel usage in the US would have little effect. Con did not dispute my claim. If we make no policy decisions to cut our CO2 emissions, we'll drop from the present 18% of world emissions to less than 5%. Con says that while the restrictions are pointless from any practical viewpoint, Con says we should do it so we can proclaim how great we are. If it didn't cost anything, that might be nice, but it costs a whole lot. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Con appears to agree that an expense of $25 trillions or so in the US could lower the earth's temperature by only 0.026 degree. A reduction of only 0.026 is pointless, so clearly it is no grounds for being a policy objective. Con argues that we should aim for more modest cuts. Why, if dramatic cuts have no useful effect? EPA mandates recently imposed will cost $78 billion per year for the next 90 years. That's $7 trillion spread over the 90 years. In return, according to the EPA analysis, the earth's temperature will be reduced by 0.00375° C. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That is not measurable. We should not spend large sums to achieve a result that is not measurable. By comparison, $15.6 billion was spent on AIDS research in a recent year, a shortfall of $7.7 billion. [21. http://www.avert.org... ] There is no justifications for a policy that spends $78 billion on a result that cannot even be detected if successful while the money is much better spent on things that do measurable good. Con ignored the lost opportunity costs. The US has a critical dependence on foreign oil and badly needs jobs and tax revenues. Yet, over $300 trillion in energy reserves are locked away for no reason other than fear of CO2. The government gets about 40% of oil profits directly in taxes, and more from the incomes of employees in the energy business. Our deficit is about $15 trillion and the economy is a disaster. We need the revenue. 5. Con claims consensus Skeptics of CO2 crisis have long agreed global temperatures are rising. However, climate models predicting things like a six degree rise by 2010 are disproved. Con seems to agree that policies of inhibiting CO2 will cost trillions of dollars and have no practical effect. Statements of imminent danger do not change the basic fact that policies to suppress CO2 in the US are destroying the economy by draining resources and fostering foreign dependence, while having no measurable effect on climate. Scientists have no special authority to claim that pointless policies should be instituted. A far better approach is to allowi economic growth and use the prosperity to adapt to climate change, regardless of what causes climate change. Prosperity can support things like water projects that make a real difference in food production. That will have a much larger effect than a degree or two of warming. We should also continue research on climate. Climate engineering solutions have been offered than would artificially reduce world temperatures at relatively low cost. [22. http://www.usatoday.com... ] The objection to climate engineering is that climate is so poorly understood that the effects cannot be assessed. That claim is odd, since CO2 crisis claims involve climate being completely understood. The crisis advocates are on to something this time; climate is not well understood. Con tried a character attack on all MIT climate scientists, Calling them “nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists.” Con didn't respond to the reasons for the new effort. Even the biased Wikipedia came up with a list of 75 reputable climate scientists skeptical of CO2 crisis. [23. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The resolution is affirmed.

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

Aff Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosphers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigting the effects of climate change is neccessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that •The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; •Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; •The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries.

The political science of climate change

I did not respond to your arguments because you didn’t make any arguments. What you did is make a bunch of assertions which you failed to support with reasons or evidence. However, since you seem eager to have address your arguments, I'll give it a go. Green Guilt CON has claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses propaganda in order to create green guilt. This is simply a bald assertion; I’m not sure what evidence CON has to support this claim, but I am interested to see it. As an intergovernmental organization, the IPCC is not tied down to the politics of a particular nation or religion, and its reports do not prescribe policy [1]. Again, I am interested to see CON’s evidence. Eugenicists CON has claimed that the term “global warming” is used by “modern eugenicists.” I’m not sure that there are any significant numbers of eugenicists around these days, but if they are I am saddened that they are trying to hijack the phrase referring to this great threat. I actually don’t know how to respond to this because CON has again failed to provide any evidence; either for the existence of actual groups of eugenicists or to their goals related to their use of the term in question. However, even if CON’s claim is true, it has no bearing on the veracity of global warming. Globalist Elite Finally, CON has made the claim that believers in anthropogenic global warming are being manipulated by the “globalist elite,” whoever that is. First, I would like to point out that, again, CON has made claims that he has not backed up with evidence. However, I would like to make the point that those who believe in global warming are following the evidence [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CON is also claiming that these alleged “elite” are trying to manipulate global population to make it more closely resemble themselves. Perhaps CON provide some arguments and evidence in support of this claim as well. Final Thoughts The instigator of this debate has provided very little in the way of supporting arguments, and has failed to provide ANY evidence whatsoever for his claims. Instead, he has made numerous bald assertions. I am interested to see the arguments along with supporting evidence CON will provide in the next round. Sources: (Note: Whenever possible, I have linked to the full article, however, this was not always possible as some scholarly journals require a subscription to view them. In these cases, I have linked to the abstracts.) [1] http://www.ipcc.ch... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [3] http://www.nature.com... [4] http://www.sciencemag.org... [5] http://www.pnas.org... [6] http://www.sciencemag.org... [7] http://academic.evergreen.edu... [8] http://www.ecd.bnl.gov... [9] http://courses.washington.edu... [10] http://www.nature.com... [11] http://www.geneseo.edu...

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

Well, Firstly, You have ignored my first post completely and not addressed any of the information that I have supplied. In order to win this debate you must address your opponents comments and points otherwise it is not a debate but just a display of ideas without any acknowledgement or refutation of your opponents ideas. I will attempt to address your comments which you have thus failed to do. 1. Consensus is not a valid scientific methodology. Nothing can be proven just through shear weight of numbers of people that believe something to be true. The only way to prove something to be true or false is through - logic, Evidence and reason. The science community is not going to provide any evidence against climate change because they make a living out of it and therefore, It is not in their monetary and career related ambitions to disprove it. 2. Experts. You can't always trust an expert. Especially, If they can make money from their mistakes or by telling lies. This is the case for climate change scientists. It is far more profitable and they have better career prospects if they agree with climate change then if they disagree with it. 3. Car industry example - Is that why Volkswagen was sued for 4 billion of dollars in regards to providing false data in regards to engine exhaust emissions? Is that why millions of vehicles are recalled each year in regards to unsatisfactory and unsafe parts? 4. Computer trust - I paid for anti -virus software for many years until I learnt through trial and error that I didn't need it. Thus, All disease and virus is avoidable through proper diet (for humans) and intake of proper data (uncorrupted) in the case of computers. Thus, The computer industry profits from anti-virus software which is essentially unnecessary. Note - I can - build my own computer, Fix electrical problems, Plumbing, Fix car, Carpentry, Painting, Build house and grow my own food. Thus, I am not reliant on the system to provide for me for anything. Quote - Climate change is an existential threat. As seen by the livescience link humanity will be doomed by 2050 if we ignore climate change for the next thirty years. [0] Large portions of Earth will be inhabitable which will lead to unrest and possibly war. This means climate change could cause the extinction of the human race. Reply - I have already shown data on the properties of CO2 which show that the climate is not going to disintegrate in the future. Note - If the climate did get hotter, This would be a bonus for humanity because it would mean increases in agricultural output. There are no negative aspects of temperature increase. Note - We are still moving out of the Ice Age, Which began occurring 10, 000 years ago. This is what has triggered mankind's growth over this time period. If the Ice Age didn't end, We would be still living in caves to this very day. 5. Who started the IPCC? Answer - Maurice Strong. A convicted communist sympathizer who spent his last days hiding in China under the protection of the Chinese Communist Party and wanted for several crimes in relation to extortion and theft of money. Known as the U. N. 's Oil-for-Food- Programme.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time. I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over. Thank you for debating!