Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewCimate change is real and caused by humans
Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.
I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources. As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification. Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example. " It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11] Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate. Sources 10. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Geoengineering gives time and optimism to climate fight
Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering is potentially the key to unlock the mitigation puzzle—a way of controlling climate risks during the many decades that it will take to transform the global energy system. Asking nations to spend trillions to avoid damages (mostly many) decades in the future while doing little to address warming’s more immediate effects is a difficult task. But if geoengineering can stave off short- and medium-term harms while giving time for a long-term solution to take effect, the result is a coherent policy proposal that may enjoy broader public support."
God is real
Thanks for accepting the debate. I'm going to clarify something before I begin. I believe God is a reality, not a certainty or a fact. That's why it's called faith. I believe in God. I wouldn't say I believe in science, because I know it's true. So if you want to try to use the assumption that believers must prove God is a fact, I would say that's a complete fallacy. Contention 1: Creation indicates a God. For a long time in history, there was an assumption that the universe always existed, and that would seem to support atheism, but today, most religions and science agree that the universe in fact had a beginning. Science calls it the Big Bang. One of the scientists that frequently studies the Big Bang is Stephen Hawking. Hawking has said before that the laws of physics say that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, something else would've had to exist in order to get a universe. Stephen Hawking tried to solve this without turning to God by creating a theory based on quantum fluctuations and in order for his theory to be true, something called imaginary time would have to exist. There's no such thing as imaginary time. So even someone as smart as Stephen Hawking can't come up with a way that to explain the Big Bang without God. Contention 2: The universe is fine tuned. The fine tuning argument or the intelligent design argument has put modern atheism completely on the defensive side, all thanks to science. As we all know, there are things in our universe that are universal. Such as the speed of light, which is the same everywhere in the universe. That's just one example by the way. Some scienfists have suggested that if that speed of light or other universal settings were different by much less than a percent, the universe would not exist. As we all know, nature is not constant. Look at the rapid changes of mountain formations, or the rapid climate change that has been going on for millions of years. The point here is that in order for the universe to exist, there has to be something holding things like the speed of light to a constant. And my question to you is, if it's not God, what is it? Contention 3: The moral argument. As human beings, we have a certain set of moral values. They vary of course, but they're not too far off. In some places the death penalty offense varies, but we all seem to agree that death itself is bad, therefore killing people is bad. Because we have a pretty close moral standard, it is likely that all of that has one authority commanding it. Can a universal moral standard come naturally? Probably not. So it's likely that there is a supreme being commanding our morals. I'm excited to see what kind of direction this debate goes to and good luck. https://m.youtube.com...
Geoengineering is one part of larger climate fight
Jamais Cascio. "It's Time to Cool the Planet." Wall Street Journal. June 15th, 2009: "let's be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of ecosystems damaged by carbon overload. But what geoengineering can do Wall Street Journal. June 15th, 2009: "let's be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of ecosystems damaged by carbon overload. But what geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic 'tipping point' events such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster. Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary 'stay of execution.' We will still have to work for a pardon."
is evolution real
OK, Good argument but there are some holes. First the idea that since very few transitional forms were ever found that this disproves evolution. This is expected when working with fossils due the the very precise conditions required to form the fossil in the first place, And second these transitional form may just be one or 2 individuals and the odds of them becoming fossilized is incredibly slim. Second you seem to think that we find fossils of entire animals, That rarely ever happens typically archaeologists find say a femur, Tooth, Or spinal vertebra which they then have to cross reference with every other fossil ever found in order to classify it. So in a way every single fossil is questionable since the bones weren't found in the same place, And the bones aren't even from the same individual. Next I will provide some examples of evolution that you can't refute because the specimens are sitting on the dinner table. Take the cucumber for example, Or as it is actually called the domestic cucumber ( I know it sounds weird but trust me any widely grow plant is considered domesticated) Its wild for in about 1/8 the size, Cover in 2 inch long spines, And is POISONOUS. People grew them for medical purposes because of their bitter taste they believed it to be a healing herb. I will now address your point on mutualism, The sweetlips didn't learn to seek out the cleaner fish, The cleaner fish sought out the sweetlips. It probably started with small fish that would pick bits of food from its teeth when it was distracted, Then as the fish would inevitably start to realize that the smaller fish cleaning its teeth prevented them from rotting, And before you say that "they couldn't have done that, They aren't smart enough" Take into consideration the Tusk fish. This fish uses simple tools, It will spent its entire life searching for a coral growth that is just the right size and strength, It will use the coral it crack open small clams much like the way chimps use rocks to crack nuts. And I'm just saying sorry in advance I'm using a school computer at the moment and the link s you sent didn't work so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those. And finally my argument without evolution how can you explain the diversity of life over the years for, Dinosaurs and their obviously warm tropic climate. ( yes we know what the climate was like back then, Next round if you would like to see a link I'll provide one) to the wholly mammoth an animal that was clearly meant for a colder climate. How do you explain Continental drift and the time it took for our contents to drift this far. How do you explain the lack of modern animals in the deeper areas of the fossil record, But when we have animals that are very similar in shape, Size and the same species. Next how do you explain the different species of humans, Like Neanderthal, And cromadnid. And because i feel like I will give you example of fish moving onto land today, The oceanic blenny spends its entire life out of water it absorbs air through its skin and the species actively avoids contact with water, Due to their muscles having adapted to walking not swimming, This makes them poor swimmers. And t=studies have should that they are slowly moving farther away from the water with each passing year by a distance of about 2 inches, Not a lot but still its ground breaking because here we have a fish, Not only breathing air in its gaseous state, But also slowly migrating away from the water. And further more to end I would like to see solid, Concrete evidence for biblical creation, Because if 1 must have solid evidence so must the other. Man dude you should have increased the time limit.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real
Thanks to Con for submitting a quick response. Also, I want to let the voters know that I will not be responding to arguments presented in Con's videos due to character space. I will only respond to the arguments that Con decides to elaborate on. == Rule Clarification == No, it is not a violation of the rules to point out why evidence may be incomplete, obsolete, etc. It is okay to criticize arguments and evidence, but not the sources of such information. == Counter Arguments == CA1) Pro claims that there actually is no scientific consensus that accepts the validity of AGW, but this simply isn't true. Pro lists seemingly large numbers of scientists whom doubt the veracity of current Climate Science, but it's the percentages that really matter. A 2009 survey found that 82% of all Earth scientists feel human activity has a significant impact on global warming trends, and 97% of Climatologists agree. The main dissenters are Meteorologists, whom study short-term and local weather patterns, rather than long-term, global climate patterns, such as active Climatologists. http://articles.cnn.com... Pro also correctly claims that science is not a democracy, but fails to realize how a scientific consensus is established, which is through evidence and theory. Unlike the general public, the scientific community does not base its conclusions on opinions and ideology, but instead facts and evidence, which makes such a consensus very, very reliable. CA2) Con presents two arguments here: Past warming trends and the *rate* of such warming. The first chart shows the radical cooling period sustained during the last ice age 16,000 years ago, which is understood to have been triggered by variations in Earth's axis. But more importantly, when focused on the last millennium, the chart shows surface temperatures to have been the highest 1,000 years ago. This is known as the Medieval Warming Period, which is notably a regional phenomenon, for most other data sets support the "Hockey Stick" figure that demonstrates *global* temperatures are currently much higher than they were 1,000 years ago. http://www.newscientist.com... Con's second argument asserts that the current rate of Climate Change is insignificant when viewed historically. However, as I pointed out in my opening arguments, positive feedback loops and weakening carbon sinks are aiding the acceleration of Earth's warming, which is perpetuated by human activity. Con has failed to address these factors. http://www.nature.com... CA3) Here, Con attempts to blame current warming trends on asphalt, which has supposedly corrupted the temperature records. This issue has been studied in detail, and the effects of urban areas are proven to be statistically insignificant. Not to mention, observatories such as NASA adjust the data to account for such variables, and the results remain largely the same. http://www.grist.org... CA4) It should be noted that Con's evidence arbitrarily limits graphs in order to force a distorted conclusion, which makes the data set largely incomplete. The 11-year sunspot cycle has remained relatively constant for the last few centuries, and has even declined over the last few decades. However, Earth's temperatures have not fluctuated in similar ways, but have instead steadily increased, which clearly rules out the possibility that solar cycles are responsible for recent warming trends. http://www.ucar.edu... http://www.ourplanet.org.uk... CA5) Con should elaborate on this argument. In any case, Con fails to acknowledge that the Stratosphere is cooling, while the Troposphere is warming, which is indicative of greenhouse warming, rather than solar warming. The exact fingerprint may be missing from the data set, but this might be due to instrumental errors. http://www.realclimate.org... CA6) Con claims that rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, which is nonsensical. He has switched the chicken and the egg, and he provided no mechanism for how this might take place, except for the assertion that rising temperatures decrease oceanic carbon solubility, which isn't described in his source. On the other hand, myriad scientific institutions have explained in great detail how CO2 traps solar energy in Earth's atmosphere, which creates the Greenhouse Effect. Moreover, historical temperature/carbon data collections demonstrate that CO2 rises BEFORE temperatures, which empirically disproves Con's assertions. http://dangerousintersection.org... CA7) Con criticizes the Hockey Stick graph, which is somewhat justified. It has been acknowledged that the statistical process used by Michael Mann was faulty, but overall, the data set was fairly accurate. Additional studies have further substantiated Mann's paper, simultaneously discrediting the Medieval Warming Period. http://www.newscientist.com... == Addressing Con's Refutations == CR1) In my first argument, I pointed out that CO2 helps to create the Greenhouse Effect, but Con replies with cloud feedbacks, which doesn't refute how greenhouse gases affect Earth's climate. It instead poses that clouds may reduce the rate of warming, but considering that clouds trap AND reflect heat, the overall effect is probably neutral. Because Con's refutation was vague and poorly sourced, my argument stands. CR2) "As long as CO2 is not significant cause, this argument is not plausible." -- This does not address the correlation between the Industrial Revolution and the rise in CO2. Furthermore, CO2 IS the cause of Earth's warming trends, which is another point that Con hasn't properly addressed. CR3) Con claims that negative feedbacks (clouds) stabilize surface temperatures, yet the graph I cited clearly shows substantial temperature fluctuations, which throws that notion out the window -- I'll link it again. Ironically, Con also says that the graph refutes my own arguments, which isn't true. My argument is that *recent* temperature fluctuations cannot be explained by natural phenomena; however, past fluctuations can be. Thus, Con's response boils down to a straw-man. http://www.seed.slb.com... CR4) Con once again claims that cloud feedbacks will stabilize Earth's temperatures, otherwise past temperature records would be wildly fluctuating. Funny enough, past temperatures DO vastly fluctuate, which already cripples Con's argument. Not to mention, clouds do not act solely as *negative* feedbacks, but also as *positive* feedbacks. http://www.sciencedaily.com... There are other feedback mechanisms to take into account, such as the aforementioned arctic ice dilemma, along with weakening carbon sinks -- two arguments that Con dropped. These combined factors will overwhelm the neutral effects of cloud feedbacks, which is observed in previous temperature fluctuations that Con's arguments cannot account for. == Conclusion == Con has largely ignored crucial evidence put forth in my opening arguments, and he's also dropped some of these arguments. Con also provided incomplete data sets while glossing over a scientific consensus that directly conflicts with his flawed position. Overall, Con has not adequately provided the necessary data and theoretical framework required to dismiss the overwhelming science that arbitrates Anthropogenic Global Warming. Thanks again to Con, and good luck with your response.
Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!
Global Warming is real and is manmade! Over the last decades, Earth scientists around the world have evaluated pools of atmospheric, geographic, and oceanic data to reach the same conclusion: the Earth's surface is getting warmer. Besides registering a constant increase in the Earth's average surface temperature decade after decade, scientists also show that the world's sea levels are rising 3.16 mm per year--(and have risen a total of 8 inches over the last century!)--as a result, a situation which will cause more dry land to be lost to the ocean as time passes [1]. The Earth's warming trend is causing artic sea ice to disappear at a rate of 11.5% per decade. In 1996 satellite observations showed that there was 79 million square kilometers of sea ice in the Artic Ocean in the month of September (the warmest month at the Artic pole); in September of 2012, satellite observations recorded the lowest quantity of Artic sea ice on record--a dismal 3.61 million square kilometers, less than half of what was recorded in 1996 [1]. The year-to-year trends show some oscillation, but the general trend shows a gradual decline in artic sea ice. Global warming is also causing dry land ice to disappear. NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002" [1]. Alarmingly, satellite imagery shows colossal chunks of Antartica falling into the ocean, and monumental glaciers evaporating over the course of a mere decade! Most shocking of all, Earth scientists warn that the trend is getting worse! From 1870 to 2000, for example, (since scientists have been recording measurements) oceanic sea levels rose on average 1.7 mm per year; from 1993 to present, oceanic sea levels have risen 3.16 mm per year--nearly double the average over the last century [1]! And what is responsible? What is the culprit in this Earth-transforming trend? Though natural events like erupting volcanoes and biological respiration can be shown to contribute to global warming, scientists are now 90% certain that the increase in atmospheric temperatures is caused by exploding concentrations of green house gases caused by human activity [2]. Volcanoes and biological respiration release green house gas (in the form of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. However, concensus in the scientific community is that land and submarine volcanoes release (at maximum) approximately 1% of all the CO2 emitted by humans in the course of a year [3]. The Burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and gasoline, large-scale deforestation, and the emission of methane by ammonia-based fertilizers (used in human agriculture) contribute primarily to the Earth's worsening warming trend. By and large, measurements show that CO2 is the primary culprit in manmade global warming. Nature uses green house gases to facilitate heat trapping from the sun's rays to warm the Earth and make biological life on the planet possible. But if the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere become excessive, this can overheat the planet, alter the Earth's climate system, injure natural ecosystems, and make it harder for biological processes to take place and be maintained. Largely because of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels are at the highest they've ever been in the last 400,000 years--and they continue to climb. Research using ice cores shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 33% higher today than it has ever been in the last half million years [1]. The concentration is almost double today than the average over the last 400,000 years--and it continues to get worse [1]. Purpose In this debate I will argue that Global Warming is real and that humans have contributed to it significantly--if not almost entirely. My opponent will argue that global warming is either (1) false, or (2) real but not manmade. He will support his position with evidence, reliable sources, and try to descredit my arguments. He should begin his arguments in ROUND 1. Good luck! (My purpose with this debate is to educate the debaters and readers alike about the critical topical of global warming.) [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...) [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org...) [3] (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)
Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real
Thanks for the response, Con. == Counter Arguments == CA1 - Scientific Consensus) Con, once again, lists limited examples of dissenting scientists, which is ultimately meaningless. I could list hundreds of scientists whom reject the theory of evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming consensus on the matter. 82% of all Earth scientists accept AGW, which Con has not accounted for. Also, I never claimed that Meteorologists and other skeptics are "black sheep" or simple-minded. Instead, I pointed out that Meteorology is a field that studies local and short-term phenomena, which may be ill-suited for climate research. CA2 - Past Warming Trends) Past warming trends are important, but Con is ignoring important data sets. I linked a number of independent and governmental studies that largely arbitrate the Hockey Stick figure, but Con decides to ignore such evidence and refer back to the limited study poised in his embedded video. By limiting his data collections, Con is limiting his ability to arrive at an honest conclusion. I'll link the studies again: http://www.newscientist.com... Con also demands evidence that natural phenomena cannot be responsible for the current warming anomaly, which is supposedly happening at a normal rate. But once again, this ignores the importance of carbon sinks, which have absorbed vast amounts of CO2, essentially slowing the rate of warming. Moreover, the little ice ages did not have near the amount of CO2 that is currently present in Earth's atmosphere, which points away from that event being the cause behind *current* warming patterns. http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu... CA3 - Temperature Bias) NASA and other scientific organizations have already addressed the issue of temperature record bias, but Con has ignored the rebuttal. Yes, temperature records have been slightly affected by Urban Heat Islands, but when the data is adjusted for such changes, it largely produces the same outcome. In other words, the problem is rather meaningless, for the effects are statistically insignificant. Con needs to demonstrate otherwise, or this will remain a moot point. Source relinked: http://www.grist.org... CA4 - Solar Cycles) The source, which I'll link again, shows that solar cycles have not changed over the last century or so. This does not match up with Earth's rising temperatures, and even if NASA says solar cycles have a slight effect, the results are marginal. This natural phenomenon cannot be responsible for such rapid Global Warming, which leaves human activities as the only viable culprit. Con has not addressed this matter; he keeps reposting the same arguments that have already been refuted. http://www.ucar.edu... CA5 - Greenhouse Fingerprint) Nobody is claiming that CO2 models and records are flawless, but that they are reliable. However, Con is attempting to make the God Of The Gaps argument: Scientists don't understand why there aren't any heat signatures where they should be, so that must mean AGW is false. Contrarily, the more scientific attitude would be to wait for more evidence before jumping to conclusions. However, what scientists DO know is that the Stratosphere is cooling, which is perfectly indicative of the Greenhouse Effect, so if anything, these two combined results remain inconclusive. CA6 - CO2/Temperature Relationship) Con is actually correct; CO2 lagged behind temperatures throughout the last few ice ages (last 400K years). However, Con is misapplying these observations to current warming trends. During these ice ages, changes in Earth's orbit and axis forced slight warming, and as a result, oceans gave up more CO2, which ended up being the driving factor behind deglaciation. The process can work in either order, but CURRENT warming trends show CO2 levels rising BEFORE temperatures, which will only be amplified by the weakening of oceanic carbon solubility. In essence, CO2 is the driving factor behind Global Warming; rises in CO2 can spur natural warming events, but so can the direct release engaged by the burning of fossil fuels. The key is that right now CO2 levels are preceding surface temperatures, which implicate human activities. http://www.skepticalscience.com... CA7 - MWP) Con's source asserts that the temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago, but it does not provide the evidence to substantiate the claim. His [3] source also refers to the Urban Heat Island Effect, among other statistical factors that have already been addressed and accounted for. Ultimately, most results of warming patterns taking place over the last millennium conclude the same outcome, all being from different sources. The conclusion is that Earth is at its warmest point right now, and the MWP is largely a myth: http://www.newscientist.com... == Con's Refutations == CR1 -- Greenhouse Effect) So, Con accepts that the Greenhouse Effect is enabled by CO2, but he does not feel that it is significant. Again, his reasoning relies on the effects of clouds, yet he hasn't addressed my arguments, which is that clouds are largely neutral feedbacks -- not negative feedbacks. Moreover, Con's source mainly abides in the assumption that negative feedbacks will counteract warming, but it does not sufficiently describe how and why CO2 is, in itself, insignificant. The argument is unsubstantiated. CR2 - Fossil Fuels) Con needs to elaborate on his arguments rather than just post sources. I pointed out that recent warming explosions coincide with the CO2 explosion initiated during the Industrial Revolution -- a phenomenon that Con has glossed over again, disregarding its importance. CR3&4 - Feedbacks) Con claims that negative feedbacks regulate Earth's climate, otherwise a warming apocalypse might happen. What isn't realized is that these warming explosions have happened, and they were ignited mainly be positive feedback amplifiers, such as CO2. In fact, the past glaciation periods were slightly triggered by Earth's orbit, and as surface temperatures rose, oceanic CO2 exploded, which took over the warming process. If such powerful negative feedbacks were in place, these vast fluctuations wouldn't exist. The point is that Earth's temperatures will only get warmer as positive feedbacks are triggered by human activities, and they won't be significantly slowed by clouds or anything like that. == Conclusion == Con has failed to break the scientific consensus, he has not accounted for the effects of fossil fuels, and his arguments that blame natural causes have been thoroughly dissected by the science community. Solar cycles have remained constant, and feedback loops are not going to keep Earth's climate in check. The reality is that human actions are accelerating Global Warming, and Earth's temperatures have already rocketed to historic highs. With CO2 levels being the highest in hundreds of thousands of years, and continuing to rise, the current warming trend will only continue at an increased pace. Con has not adequately addressed this issue in detail; he has only listed sources while giving vague explanations, which don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. I again thank Con for this debate, and wish him good luck with his next response.
Global warming is real
The first problem with my opponent's response is his failure to address one big concern, which is that the only piece of evidence he has referenced was written in 1998. In the intervening 15 years, not only has scientific consensus moved even more towards acceptance of anthropogenic cglobal warming, but climate and weather patterns have more starkly revealed the ongoing changes. Temperatures have been increasing more rapidly even just over the past 5 or so years, as record heat waves would suggest. This calls into question his authors' outdated assumption that increases in temperature have caused or are simply correlated with levels of carbon dioxide. I did a Google search for "hottest years global warming." The three first results were: http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://www.slate.com... http://www.nytimes.com... All of these respected sources verify that the earth is warming. Of the first 12 relevant results, 11 supported the idea that the earth is growing warmer. It also indicates that NOAA and NASA scientists, whose motivations are far less questionable than scientists who admit they receive funding from oil companies, say that this is independent, empirical verification of a conclusion they had already reached based on modeling theories. Additionally, the ten hottest years since 1880 were all after 1998-the year in which my opponent's only evidence was written. The claim that Ross Gelbspan is the only one accusing the companies of lying is a semantic trick. My implication wasn't that the Idso family is lying, however they have ideological and financial biases here, which is why you should be skeptical of their work given that they are joined by less than 3% of the scientific community. My opponent seems to accuse me of not having sufficient data. Here's another source that explains the study I linked to in the last round: http://www.slate.com... This article also states that most of the people who disagree are not actually climatologists. You should prefer a consensus of people qualified to be writing on the topic. Additionally, it documents some of the relevant information. Carbon dioxide is at the highest levels in 3 million years, which is contributing to the fastest rate of warming in at least 11,000 years. This is no coincidence; only massive human pollution has the potential to create these changes in such a brief timeframe. Here is another method that was used to validate different measurements of temperatures: http://www.scientificamerican.com... Finally, my opponent is far too dismissive of the paper I linked to in the last round. He says the consensus is "a bunch of people who have not looked too deeply into the issue or their (sic) liars and frauds." He says this after accusing me of not providing a reason as to why his authors are biased. The scientists he cites clearly have a vested interest in the matter. He has not provided a reason why my authors must be liars or frauds. In fact, he is actually making the accusation that the meta-analysis I cited, which reviewed 1,000s of papers written on the subject by scientists who have devoted their careers to this field (including many employed by agencies of the government) is invalid, and that you should prefer one family of scientists over these data. He is making the claim that two people are more trustworthy because 97% of the scientific community are frauds or liars. I ask the voters, what is more likely? That two people linked to oil companies are biased/simply mistaken and outdated, or that almost every climate scientist on earth is engaged in a conspiracy? I think it's clear that my opponent's position is absurd.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
If poor are most effected, they should be willing to invest.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
China and India emissions will increase over time; cannot be exempted.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Greater resources of developed countries does not obligate them.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
China's emissions harm neighbors/world; exemptions are unfair.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developed states did not initially know they were causing warming.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Emissions exemptions for China/India will inflate outsourcing to them
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developing states want lower standards for economic advantage
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
High emitters, not developed countries, are most obligated.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
World's manufacturing is in China, emissions must be cut there.
Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change
Developed nations create demand that propels developing states.
