args

The climate is not "a changing".

The climate is changing, And I will argue this point from a geologic/anthropological perspective in the coming rounds. Whether the IPCC is a bunch of commies or not is irrelevant and a non-sequitur. Your discounting of authority is irrelevant to me. With this being said, I will save my arguments for climate change for the coming round. Round structure wasn't specified and I assume it's ok since you're doing the same thing.

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

I accept this challenge. My first argument is that the governments of developed countries is not the only way we can solve this problem. There are things like individuals, organizations and more that can help. For example, fossil fuels like gasoline, when burned, indirectly cause climate change due to CO2. However, gas prices are going up, and people will switch to greener alternatives as they cannot afford gas. Plus, developed countries are not producing all the pollution in the world, but climate change is a global issue, and just developed nations is not enough. For example, the US actually produces less co2 than China, which produces 7,031,916 thousand metric tons per year, compared to the U.S. 5,461,014 thousand tons.[1] So, all developed nations do produce a lot of CO2, but a lot of CO2 is from other nations. Climate change is a global problem, but you are just thinking that developed nations should not only remove their impact, but also impacts from other nations. Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? (No personal attack intended.) "Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives." As I said before, as gas prices rise, they will get less profit as more people switch to other energy. Plus, you are talking about renewable energy, which is linked but a separate topic. "The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created." But lot's of CO2 are from developing countries! And you said only developed nations should do this, so they have to clean up someone else's mess. "Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5"C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die." Global warming has many deadly consequences, but this does not mean that developed nations should clean up someone else's mess. You said " Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created.", but this is not completely the fault of developed nations. In conclusion, all nations, not just developed nations, have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the only ways. Most industries that pollute are subsidized b\y the government. All we have to do is abolish the government and those industries will stop polluting. Nd we wouldn't even have to regulate anything.

Climate Shift

Climate shift is demonstrably real, we have evidence of climate shift happening several times during the history of Earth. We have geological evidence of glacial migration that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, where did they go? Perhaps all of the carbon emissions from cavemen roasting wooly mammoths (now extinct) caused global warming in the distant past. Perhaps it is an unavoidable cycle that isn't well documented because of the extremely long cycle length? We should be concerned with the unavoidable climate shift, each and every one of us should be deeply concerned. Be it man made climate shift or a natural cycle, it is still climate shift. Unfortunately those among us who realize that we need to learn how to live with minimal impact on mother earth are openly mocked as hippies, and those who prepare themselves for surviving some great calamity are openly mocked and tin foil hat wearing nutters. Meanwhile the great minds of our society are pointing fingers and making measurements trying to assign blame. And the great solution that has been presented is to carbon tax our way out of this mess, which of course can only be issued by the threat of force. I don't agree that anything is "resolved".

ManBearPig is real.

The world is fine. There"s no "hole" in the ozone layer. It"s all a myth. "Argument 1 " No Significant and Prolonged Temperature Changes Since 1997 " Scientists who argue against global warming say global warming isn"t real because since the 90s there hasn"t been a significant temperature change. The upswing in the temperature started from 1975, continued till 1997 and the temperature have been flat since then which clearly states that there isn"t any significant change in temperature in last 17 years." "Argument 2 " Not Enough Historical Data Available " There is no consensus about global warming being real among scientists. Advocates also point towards the fact that a recent gathering of 31,000 scientists in the field of environmental science couldn"t reach a consensus on whether or not global warming is real. They believe that they don"t have long-term historical climate data or the data they have isn"t clear." "Argument 3 " Arctic Ice Increased by 50% Since 2012 " Arctic Ice increased in volume 50% in 2012 alone. Core measures of the Arctic Ice show that it has increased in volume since 2012, which argues against global warming causing ice caps to melt. Few people have even predicted that global warming would cause whole Arctic ice to melt which contradicts their version." "Argument 4 " Climate Models used are Proven to be Unreliable " The climate model calculations used to predict the effect of global warming have been proven to be flawed which means that the long-term predictions that they have been making are meaningless. Some scientists even argue that any increase in global temperatures could be a natural climate shift." "Argument 5 " Early Predictions About the Effects of Warming Have Been Proven Wrong " Advocates who promote arguments against global warming being real, point towards all the dates having come and gone where predictions were made about effects that never happened. For example, Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012."

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

If you wanted a serious debate then you would not have ignored my entire argument. So I guess since you are not paying attention to my arguments I will just have to disprove yours instead of adding to my own. You firstly say that, "The temperature has increased .87 Celsius." This is true, but you forgot to mention that the warming period that caused this rise started in the 1700's before the industrial revolution. In addition to this, the world has been naturally warming for the last 20,000 years. You ignored large amounts of scientific data in your argument and made a claim that I agree with. The world IS WARMING!!! It just is not caused by man. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... According to your second argument, Co2 is at 400 ppm. This is true, but there has been no substantial warming for the last 20 years which is proof of how temperature and Co2 act independently. In addition to this, 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during the last 20 year period. This in itself disproves your claim. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In addition to this, Co2 has been at much higher levels in the past. To restate what I said above, "Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000 ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time." There may be a clear and strong positive correlation between Co2 and temperature but this correlation has been weak compared to that of sun spots. For the majority of the 1900's sun spots correlated MORE STRONGLY to temperature then Co2 did. This means that sun spots had a bigger impact then Co2 on the temperature. Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the early 2000s but that is irrelevant because for the majority of the 1900's, when tons and tons of Co2 were released, the temperature was affected more by sun spots then it was by Co2. Another thing to point out, when sun spot numbers started to drop is when the flat line in temperature began. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://geoffair.net... In actual statistics, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007) http://i0.wp.com... http://inspirehep.net... https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In conclusion, not only have you ignored the majority of my first argument, you state claims that I am not even trying to disprove. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to debate or don't know how to debate my claims. In addition to this, you gave almost no evidence to support your claims, only sources of where you got the information. If you want to have a real debate, maybe reading my arguments would help. Your welcome