• PRO

    9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to...

    Climate shift

    I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-shift/1/
  • PRO

    Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a real...

    Climate Change Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report

    Climate change is no longer a distant threat but a real and present danger in the United States according to a government report issued Tuesday.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/white-house-climate-change-report
  • 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

    If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose...

    Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

    My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled. 2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC. http://joannenova.com.au... Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says. 3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion? (a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol (b) Oceans are rising? Really? I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling. 4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information. 5. Hockey stick fraud. This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. https://www.steynonline.com... 6. NOAA temperature fraud. https://realclimatescience.com...

  • CON

    http://www.heritage.org...) While some try to sweep this...

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

    I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. There has been wonderful information and opinion shared by both sides and it has been enjoyable. That said, in all three of the rounds, I fail to see a direct connection between humans and global warming proven by my opponent. Without a direct connection, and surely without a direct cause, regulations are only going to funnel money from one big organization to another and not fix the problem. We cannot be expected to blindly throw money at a guess and hope things change. In addition to the lack of evidence directly linking global warming to humans, there is also no proof as to how these regulations will actually change anything in terms of climate. There have been numerous scare tactic comments followed by minimal solutions which may or may not fix a problem that may or may not exist. It has also not been shown to what extend regulations on the American people will have on the globe as a whole. In fact, the EPA have stated that if there is a 60% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050, the global temperature will be reduced by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. (http://www.heritage.org...) I can understand that any change in the right direction is a good thing but at what cost and for what result? This is nearly 100 years later and since the EPA has already admitted that they do not know how much of a role the environment plays on climate change, how many other factors could go in to altering these numbers. Also, the American economy is in a troubling time at the moment and a further burden on businesses will only increase the problem; all because there is a chance that the temperatures may reduce by .2 degrees in 85 years. This is simply too far fetched of a plan to cause enforcement of regulations. I continue to talk about these loose connections between global warming and humans because, even if my opponent may not personally agree, there are many well respected scientists who have not been involved in scandals stating that there is no link. In December of 2008, the US Senate Minority leader released a report which included 650 dissenting scientist refuting the EPA's Claims. As of April 2009, that number increased to over 700 scientist. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which the EPA relied heavily on in their conclusions only had 52 scientists; less than 1/13th of those opposed. (http://www.heritage.org...) While some try to sweep this decent under the rug in yet another scandalous act, there are some things which cannot be disputed. If the EPA has their way and is able to regulate CO2 output by the American people, it would be the most expansive and most expensive environmental regulation in history. In addition, it will let the EPA bypass the legislative process complete. In essence, the decisions of a few will drastically alter the lives of many; all for a change in the Earth's temperature too small to ever notice. (http://www.heritage.org...) The non profit group from the home state of my opponent, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have started a petition against the adoption of regulations on the American businesses and public in the name of global warming. They have had over 31,000 American scientists sign this petition stating they have reviewed the research literature and found no link between humans and global weather changes. (http://www.oism.org...) In fact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was discussed earlier having a direct link on the EPA's conclusions have failed to prove a link between humans and global warming. The IPCC actually states, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. The sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate process." (http://www.aproundtable.org...) So by their own admission, their researched is filled with errors and speculation. Over and over again, my opponent continually denies the the overwhelming data which shows there has yet to be a direct link proven between humans and global warming. If there was a direct link out there to be proven, why hasn't anyone done it yet; not just in America but across the world? A huge scandal took place involving the Climate Research Unit and it is simply dismissed by my opponent as he states, "I do not believe that it means anything". The EPA has explained they are uncertain as to the cause of global warming and how human involvement relates to climate change. My opponent responds by saying, "They're just not certain about how much humans contribute", as if that somehow makes it okay to impose regulations on Americans. If the EPA is uncertain as to what the human contributions are and if the EPA reports are under suspicion anyway, why would we put them in charge of regulating American businesses and lives? My opponent's defense to all this uncertainty around global warming and human cases of climate change is that, he wishes global warming did not exist, but it does. He continues to claim that, "The fact is, there is scientific evidence supporting climate change and the fact that it is caused at least significantly by humans". But he has failed to show this overwhelming evidence and has moved from the EPA's 'unknown' significance of human involvement to his new statement claiming human involvement actually being 'significant'; an unsubstantiated leap to say the least. While I give my opponent credit for commenting on most of the scandals and scientific reports disproving his case, I simply cannot agree that global warming exists because he says so. Those who blindly support global warming caused by humans continually write off these problems in their data as 'minor red herrings' but fail to show the actual connection. This debate, as many others, has tried to turn the table on who has the burden of proof. The side believing global warming is caused by humans still needs to prove and show a direct link between the human involvement and in what capacity. But what we have here is my opponent claiming, personally, that it not only exists and is caused by humans but any data which disproves this claim should be dismissed as minor speed bumps. My opponent makes a remarkably embellishment of the facts as he claims, "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." Does my opponent really expect us to believe that he has reviewed all the information offered on both sides of this debate to such an extent that he can numerically calculate which side has more evidence? It is scary, to me, that people make such vast generalizations. It is also scary, to all of us, when those such as my opponent talk about human habits equating to death. These general speculations and scare tactics do not translate into fact as shown above. Without absolute proof that human change will alter climate, there is absolutely no need for government to step in and alter our economic strength and way of life. I thank my opponent for starting this topic and for a great debate!

  • PRO

    Moreover these same places are the countries that have...

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

    It is the developed world that has the capability to combat climate change. It is they that have most to cut per capita. More importantly it is these developed countries that have the research capabilities to come up with the necessary technology to make the economy greener, to produce renewable energy, to mitigate against the effects of disasters. Moreover these same places are the countries that have the finance available to fund these activities; not only funding the research into the solutions but also the financial resources to put them into action all around the world. Poor countries turn to the powerful financial centres such as London and New York to finance large projects, the same will be the case with projects to mitigate climate change. Finally these countries have the expertise to put these new inventions and projects into practice; they have the experts to work out the best places to build, to advise on building, and make sure the project does not have unintended side effects. As the nations with the greatest capability, developed nations have an increased responsibility to act.

  • PRO

    Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources;...

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

    My thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I look forward to a fascinating dialogue. I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest. Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc.; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc. C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change. C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms. P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in.[3][4] 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 4. http://www.guardian.co.uk...

  • CON

    I chose to play defense and only address the points you...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./2/
  • PRO

    Authors: 17 10. ... I look forward to having this debate.

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    Political skeptics of climate change often claim that scientists are divided on the issue, or even that most scientists are deniers of climate change. I take the position that most scientific articles that discuss climate change acknowledge or conclude that it exists. In statistics, an "unusual event" occurs less than five percent of the time, or once out of twenty. If my opposition finds one credible scientist or study that concludes against climate change for every twenty I find that acknowledge it, he will win this debate. Here is my opening list: 1. "Turtle mating patterns buffer against disruptive effects of climate change" Proceeds of the Royal Society (2012) http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... Authors: 8 2. "Monitoring EU Emerging Infectious Disease Risk Due to Climate Change" ScienceMag (2012) http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/41/336-6080/pdf/418.full.pdf Authors: 5 3. "Biodiversity ensures plant"pollinator phenological synchrony against climate change" Ecology & Organismal Biology (2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... Authors: 6 4. "Climate change: How do we know?" NASA (2013) http://climate.nasa.gov... Authors: Undefined Count (NASA) 5. "Evaluating the effects of climate change on summertime ozone using a relative response factor approach for policymakers" Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com... Authors: 12 6. "Climate Change Effects on Vegetation Distribution and Carbon Budget in the United States" Ecosystems (2001) hhttp://link.springer.com... Authors: 4 7. "Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999" ScienceMag (2003) http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 8 8. "Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria" Journal of Paleolimnology (2004) http://link.springer.com... Authors: 3 9. "Effects of climate-driven primary production change on marine food webs: Implications for fisheries and conservation" Global Change Biology (2012) http://espace.library.uq.edu.au... Authors: 17 10. "Beyond climate change attribution in conservation and ecological research" Ecology and Organismal Biology (2013) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... Authors: 7 11. "The Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change on North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks" American Meteorological Society (2013) http://journals.ametsoc.org... Authors: 4 12. "Revisiting the urban politics of climate change" Environmental Politics (2013) http://www.tandfonline.com... Authors: 2 13. "Perception of Climate Change" Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2012) http://www.pnas.org... Authors: 3 14. "Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems" Annual Reviews (2012) http://www.annualreviews.org... Authors: 14 15. "Climate System Response to External Forcings and Climate Change Projections in CCSM4" American Meteorological Society (2012) http://journals.ametsoc.org... Authors: 11 16. "The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?" ScienceMag http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 2 17. "Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change" Nature (2012) http://www.nature.com... Authors: 25 18. "Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise" Nature (2012) http://www.nature.com... Authors: 10 19. "An integrated biophysical and socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: The case of a New Zealand dairy farming system" Environmental Modelling and Software (2012) http://www.sciencedirect.com... Authors: 4 20. "The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and Implications for Climate Change" Annual Reviews (2012) http://www.annualreviews.org... Authors: 5 21. "A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems." Nature (2003). http://www.nature.com... Authors: 2 22. "Extinction risk from climate change" Nature 2004. http://www.nature.com... Authors: 19 23. "Ecological responses to recent climate change." Nature (2002). http://www.nature.com... Authors: 9 24. "Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security" Science (2004). http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 1 25. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" ScienceMag http://www.sciencemag.org... Authors: 1 Assuming no overlap between authors and papers, these 25 references describe the opinions of 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real. Assuming all 25 of these are credible, my opposition may cite 2 scientific studies, or the opinions of 37 credible scientists, to invalidate my assertion climate change denial is unusual in the scientific community. I look forward to having this debate.

  • 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.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/