Developed states have more available money to fight...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developed states have more available money to fight climate change
Topic space view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
-
PRO -
CON China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
China is worst contributor to climate change; has equal obligations
-
CON Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on...
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Large developing nations are wealthy enough to lead on climate change.
-
CON Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
"Blame game" distracts from solving global climate change
-
PRO Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is...
Climate shift
Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only.
-
CON When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on...
Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies
Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...
-
PRO No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will...
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.
Everything that I am saying about global climate change or global is not political. Some of it is like proposed solutions are but the facts are the facts. You seem to preach about all of this evidence but I have failed to see any specific source. Citing just a press blog of a bunch of studies is not a proper citation and is not within context. What is your scientific training? When was the last time you took a class or attended a lecture about climate and our world? For me it was just two weeks ago. I don't think you have the credibility or the knowledge to determine what science is garbage and what is not. Catalytic converters have solved the smog problem. However this has come at the cost of lower fuel efficacy, removal of rare metals to produce it, and the recent discovery of nitrous oxide being released. I don't have a solution because I am not a engineer. I don't have the slightest notion where to start. I think I did provide peer reviewed sources. The books, the government websites didn't that do the trick. I mean you certainly didn't have anything to refute any of those claims or at least for the stuff you can read. Plus you provided very few sources yourself. Just links to blogs and a press page for a opposing political viewpoint. Are you an expert to determine what is a waste of taxpayers money. What about the war on drugs or the war in Iraq or no child left behind. Now those are wastes of tax payers money. Our government wastes far too much money on other things rather than climate change. "The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics." Science only settles itself when it reaches a conclusion. Right now the conclusion is that we are injuring the planet and ruining our chances for survival. No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will still be around. However we might not be. They are only supporting the movement because they believe their data has proven that is the correct choice. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu... What about these scientists. You have to go down to Annex 2. Really when it comes down to it you have provided very little sources, failed to refuted many of my claims, and failed to establish and logical connection. I mean you run around claiming that all of these scientist who are against you are somehow wrong in their data and presentation. Do you even have a college degree? Right now I am trying to finish mine in history and environmental conservation. Really though I do envy you. It must be incredibly nice to be so ignorant of what is truly happening in our planet and government. But of course you with your infinite wisdom knows better I'm sure.
-
CON So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Alright... So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the burden of demonstrating your claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. *I* just have to demonstrate that it's not necessarily true. Dividing it into percentages or fractions doesn't make any sense. Think of it like a courtroom, the defense is just trying to refute the claims of the prosecution, and doesn't carry a higher burden than that. Anyway, my contentions haven't been addressed at all... My opponent just re-read another statement with Trump saying he doesn't believe in climate change but my original contention already refutes that as it discredits the words of Trump and actually looks deeper into his intentions as a presidential candidate. My opponent's guilty of oversimplifying the situation here. Thank you. Good luck in your last round.
-
PRO But since you have just provided other forms of action...
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
I'm confused. You don't seem to actually be opposing my motion that "governments need to take radical action to combat climate change". What I did in my opening statement was gave a few suggestions about how governments could combat climate change. Instead of actually disagreeing with me, And arguing that governments shouldn't take action, You merely stated that there are other ways of doing it. I agree. There are lots of options. Thank you for your suggestions. But since you have just provided other forms of action instead of challenging the principle of taking action, Is this really a debate? We don't seem to have any disagreements. You're proposal to combating global warming is patently radical government action - ending government subsidies of polluting industries. So, I'm glad to see that we disagree nowhere.
-
PRO Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and...
The climate is not "a changing".
Quote - "it IS a red herring" OK Little Adolf, If you say so, IT MUST BE TRUE! Little does my clueless opponent know that all global warming and or climate change data has to be certified by the IPCC before it can be published. Thus, He is just talking a load of BS. It only triggers my disgust to see such uninformed authoritarian style bullying tactics. My opponent is obviously just a novice at this kind of debate and has no experience living in the real world. He has swallowed all the media and political hype surrounding this issue. My opponent clearly lacks logic and knowledge of language usage. He says that I didn't make an argument and then goes on to define an argument that I had made. WOW! That's what I would call a major contradiction. Lol I hope my opponent keeps tripping over his own stupidity. It will make my job much easier. The evidence 1a. Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He"s been a visiting professorships at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, And Kyoto, And he"s spent time at the Bureau of Meterology in Australia. Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, And has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It"s not just that man-made emissions don"t control the climate, They don"t even control global CO2 levels. CO2 variations do not correlate with man-made emissions. Peaks and falls correlate with hot years (e. G. 1998) and cold years (1991-92). Note - Muana Loa is a volcano. Thus, Could you trust a CO2 measurement taken from the top of a volcano? This is just a cynical exercise of making up big impressive numbers from dubious locations which should be considered inappropriate for anything to do with average CO2 emissions. My opinion is that the data stinks of corruption and meddling. I wouldn't trust it. Sea levels rising? Note - All the worlds oceans are connected as one large body of fluid or water. Thus, If one area of ocean is not rising, Then all the other areas didn't rise either. If they did rise independently, Then, Obviously somebody is telling a big lie. Now, Japan hasn't recorded any rise in seas levels which also proves via logic, That all the worlds oceans didn't rise either. Ref - jonova - sea levels not rising This should end all the Pacific Island climate claims right here. A new study of over 700 islands for decades shows that even though seas are rising faster than any time in the last million years, Somehow no islands with people on are shrinking. This means there are no climate change refugees from any vanishing island. Plus it"s more proof that highly adjusted satellite data is recording sea levels on some other planet. Over the past decades, Atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. A reanalysis of available data, Which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, Reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88. 6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, While only 11. 4% contracted. NASA hiding data - Jonova website NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, And clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases ZeroHedge asks: What the hell are NASA Hiding? The NASA site used to have a page titled "What are the primary forcings of the Earth system? ". In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth"s climate, That it controls all the major aspects, And we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, Albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2. Thus, We can plainly see the deceptions and trickery of both NASA and the IPCC scientists who all have an agenda to promote global climate change/ warming/cooling/ madness. Note - In the 1970's most scientists were worried about global cooling. Give me a break! These jerks don't know anything but how to get money from the government to fund their next holiday in the Bahamas to study sea levels. Lol Good luck in trying to defend this climate change rubbish. Lol
