args

Fossil fuel subsidies contradict fight against climate change.

Steve Kretzmann. "Money for nothing, and your climate for free." Oil Change International. September 16th, 2011: "The principle is simple and clear: You can’t really say you’re committed to the fight against climate change if you’re still funding oil and coal. If you’re in a hole, stop digging."

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

In other words you claim Donald Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything to turn heads. The fact that Donald Trump words suggest that Donald Trump thinks Climate Changeis a hoax does not matter. I'll accept that. Politicians are know to lie. I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not given me any option, other than to create a new argument in the 3rd round, so here it goes. Actions speak louder than words Donald Trump destroyed a scientific area of interest and natural habitat in order to build a golf course in Scotland. [3][4] Clearly, both in actions and words Trump has no respect for the environment. My opponent has shown that Trump is a compulsive liar, so his words should not matter. I think the only out for my opponent now is to prove that Trump knows that climate change is real and a threat, but is so greedy that he destroys the environment anyway. Thanks for the debate. Sources 3. http://www.imdb.com... 4. http://www.nytimes.com...

The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

"I then further read under the category of "What's Not Certain" the EPA states it is not certain about "Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes."" But in the section about what they do know, they say that they know that it's happening, and they know that it's caused by humans. They're just not certain about how much humans contribute, percentagewise. "Furthermore, the EPA's research is under suspicion anyway. There are two EPA workers who are highly critical of the EPA's memo on carbon gas. The are critical of both the substances of and the process behind the agency's proposed findings" The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans. If you want to take a memo that may or may not have been slightly unsupportive towards the climate change plight and construe it so it looks like it is destroying years of scientific conjecture, well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Do I wish that climate change wasn't happening, you bet I do. But unfortunately that's not the case. "Additionally, in November of 2009, over 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were posted on the internet." Oy gevalt! You went there... To answer your argument, yes, I am aware of the scandal, but no, I do not believe that it means anything, other than the fact that deniers are going to be that much more difficult to deal with. As I said, it would be really nice if you were right, but the sad fact is that years of scientific conjecture are not going to change because of a few emails. These emails are just a red herring of sorts. But to claim that they overturn years of science and research is ludicrous at best. "We are talking about an average over a long period of time to determine warming. Everyone would agree that one hour or one day of higher than normal temperatures does not constitute as a long enough time to establish global warming." You are correct, but the increased incidence of unusual occurrences and records make it clear that something is happening. For example, we have always had El Nino events, but they have become much more common and much stronger in recent years. If we didn't have that trend, an El Nino year would just mean that the south Pacific was warm at that particular point. Now, it means that the south Pacific is getting warmer, and it might not go back. "The EPA report you continue to quote says that it is uncertain in "Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range." If your coveted EPA cannot project future climate changes, how can you?" Greenhouse emissions are from people, my friend. We don't know how society will be in the future, and so we can't know how the climate will change if we don't know what we're going to be putting into the system. "They continue to explain they aren't certain about "Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover."" I'm sorry, but Merlin does not run the EPA. You can try to tell Lisa Jackson that she needs to take psychic lessons. My point is, there is a fine line between following scientific trends and predicting the future. We can't study things that haven't happened yet, or are so new that we can't have seen the results. That is why they invented CFC's in the first place; because they didn't know that CFC's eat up the ozone layer. "There are major scandals around covering up and hiding evidence that global warming does not exist." I agree with that whole statement except all of it. There are minor red herrings around scientific secrecy, most likely so other scientists won't discover what they're trying to discover before they discover it. Yes, I know that that's unfortunate, but it by no means disproves or even hurts the case for climate change. "The EPA even admits that it is unclear as to how the human race effects climate change." I believe that to be a gross misinterpretation on your part. They are certain that humans, in some way or another, affect climate change. They just don't quite know exactly how or how much. "I must defer back to you yet again after you read all this compelling evidence and explain that the burden or proof is yours to prove and without it, American Only regulations cannot be expected." You have shown me your "evidence," but the burden of proof is, in fact, upon yourself to show how that "evidence" can be applied as anything other than a mildly interesting piece of information. I'm sorry, but a memo and some emails can't just negate every single piece of information I gave you. If that was how life worked, we wouldn't get anywhere. It is really irresponsible to interpret facts like that, because you are completely ignoring the vast majority of facts. (Can you tell how much I enjoy the argument that it is a scandal/hoax?) "This 'hand picking' of evidence to prove climate stability and then a large spike in change raised many questions across the scientific community." Once again, how is this anything but a slightly interesting piece of trivia. You can analyze and scrutinize all of the more controversial aspects to the world's end, but you really need to look for the big picture. Basically, what I'm saying is that I really could care less about these so-called "scandals" because they do absolutely nothing to my argument, which you seem to have completely lost track of. "very continent for someone who's data is the reason we have this global warming debate today." So, what you're saying is that, whether or not this was a hoax, this graph made us realize and study something which is very real. If you think that this is the only research that has been done, I don't see how you can be qualified to debate this. The fact is, the vast majority of the evidence that we have is absolutely real, peer reviewed data from independent labs. So, I don't want to hear about your scandals or conspiracy theories, because you are completely missing the point. The fact is, any data or theories opposing the idea of climate change absolutely pale in comparison to all of the evidence and conclusions that climate change is a very real problem with very real consequences and very real ways to prevent it. It is ignorant and irresponsible to deny that. As I said earlier, if there is any reasonable evidence that climate change is caused by humans, there is absolutely no reason to not be more responsible in what we do, just in case. Every single other country is leaps and bounds more responsible than the US in terms of environmental issues. Obviously it would be virtually impossible to spontaneously get 300 million people to be more responsible, so that's why the government needs to step in. There is nothing that says that the US has special rights to spew greenhouse gases into the environment at our own expense as well as the expense of the rest of the world. That is irresponsible. That is selfish. That is just incredibly, astoundingly, disgustingly stupid. It is an incredibly easy fix, and there is nothing more important. What kid doesn't grow up without wanting to save the world? Well, my friend, environmental protections very literally save the world. I would like to thank my opponent for making excellent arguments and, admittedly, being much friendlier than I. While my opponent has done a wonderful job, his arguments were completely unsupported by no fault of his own, but because there is nothing to support them with. It is a fact that humans cause climate change, and the government can very easily alleviate our impact. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to not vote PRO. Thank you.

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.

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.