args

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

Thanks to my opponent for a nice debate! 1. The only thing I got from your source is "The requested URL /files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf" was not found on this server." 2."If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. " First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all. Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all. 3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. " Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate climate change are separate topics. Oil is related to global warming, (Which we are not sure if it exists.), and related to terrorists, but this is nowhere linked to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.

Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.

I hope you won't begrudge me but I had written out a 7, 000 word response with sources but something messed up and it's all gone and I just don't feel like trying to type it all up again so I'll just give a condensed version of what I said. There is a kind of hysteria on the level of cults that comes from the media and the climate activists. As I showed in my previous post, There have been many climate predictions over the last 50 years and all of them have been wrong. Greta and Extinction Rebellion are warning us of an impending crisis if we don't do something about our carbon emissions but we've seen that climate scientist have overstated the urgency of the data as evidenced by a video from the link you provided: https://www. Youtube. Com. . . The Green New Deal in America is suppose to be a policy for America to reduce their carbon footprint but when you read it, You get weird socialist passages like this: ". . . To promote justice and equity by stopping current, Preventing future, And repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, Communities of color, Migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, Depopulated rural communities, The poor, Low-income workers, women, The elderly, The unhoused, People with disabilities, And youth (referred to in this resolution as ""frontline and vulnerable communities"");" https://www. Congress. Gov. . . Am I the only one who's confused as to what any of this has to do with climate change? I want to also bring up the example of the Maldives which are small atoll islands that have been predicted to disappear under the sea for at least 30 years. https://trove. Nla. Gov. Au. . . The Former President wanted to buy a new island to house the populous and there were predictions as late as 2018 saying people would have to migrate sooner rather than later. "Hundreds of thousands of people will be forced from their homes on low-lying islands in the next few decades by sea-level rises and the contamination of fresh drinking water sources, Scientists have warned. " https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . https://www. Theguardian. Com. . . This is despite articles stating that climate change might actually help the Maldives grow rather than shrink it. https://theconversation. Com. . . These are not scientific articles, I admit, But given the general fear of the Maldives falling into the sea, Why has the population increased with positive net migration since the early 2000s? https://tradingeconomics. Com. . . https://fred. Stlouisfed. Org. . . Why has foreign direct investment, Net inflows quadrupled since 2000? https://www. Indexmundi. Com. . . (%25%20of%20GDP)%20in%20Maldives, Value%20was%20%2D6. 01%20in%201982. Why did they construct a new runway at their international airport to the tune of US$400 million? https://maldivesindependent. Com. . . This all seems like a waste of money if all the houses built and sold ends up underwater in 30 years. Why are investors and businessmen gambling their money in this way when we're told that the Maldives will be gone? The problem I have with your sources is that they simply assert that climate change is due to our carbon emissions without really proving it. It's one thing to point to the 1860s and make a correlation and causation argument but if we look at data over 450, 000 years, Giving us a much bigger picture, We see that CO2 fluctuated throughout history with global temperature. A variation of 10 degrees Celsius throughout the course of the graph, Keeping in mind that the temperature increases that we're suppose to be worried about peak at 2 degrees Celsius. The graph peaks at around 330 ppm and bottoms out at around 160ppm. So even without human input, There are huge variation in global temperature and natural CO2. http://euanmearns. Com. . . The Mauna Observatory data shows that we are around 400 ppm. A big jump from natural levels but we've still not seen the correlation between CO2 and temperature. https://www. Esrl. Noaa. Gov. . . The greenhouse effect doesn't seem to take place in the way people think. This is only what I get from the data and I admit I'm not an expert in this field but there just doesn't seem to be any evidence that directly correlates CO2 levels with global temperature to make the statement that humans are greatly responsible, Enough at least for us to take any action to stop it.

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

Thanks for the debate and good luck! My opponent unfortunately makes some shallow assumptions, in that they believe Donald Trump legitimately believes everything he's said. Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof, and as such must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump actually believes this during the course of this debate. Failure to do so means a lack of his fulfillment of his burden of proof and thus means the negative wins the debate. I don't need to show that Trump DOESN'T believe this, just show that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that he does. I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in climate change then could be to pander to Cruz supporters, of which only 38% believed in climate change. This is a clear reason for Trump to pander to a specific audience in order to get votes, which gives us a motivation for Trump's actions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Trump even has told people that he has a strategy of saying odd things in order to attract the audience of different groups. Take for example what Carson reported after discussing the matter with Trump himself: "I needed to know that he could listen to other people, that he could change his opinions, and that some of the more outlandish things that he"s said, that he didn"t really believe those things," Carson said. When asked which statements Trump might back away from, Carson demurred". "I"ll let him talk about that because I don"t think it"s fair for me to relay a private conversation," he said. Read more: http://therightscoop.com... How can my opponent say for certain that Trump fully believes this if there's evidence of him saying that he'll back away from some of the more outlandish claims, and that he doesn't necessarily believe all of it? My opponent even recognized in the comments section that this is a somewhat outlandish and silly claim for Trump to make. We've seen Trump back away from policies such as the muslim ban, so why assume that this is his actual belief? Unfortunately my opponent uses mostly personal speculation and does not consider the large body of compelling evidence casting doubt over Trump's actual beliefs. With that I'll give pro a chance to respond to my contentions. Thank you!

The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

To warrant putting the Great Recession on the side, these would be nice answers to have. I'm going to keep this round rather brief and, hopefully then, concise. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. Climate Change cannot be stopped. It's a perpetual process. Humans no more caused it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] then they can stop it. It should also not be ignored that the human experience is destined to become, one day, as finite as the dinosaur. However, what we do have control over is our well-being. And economics, as dull as it proves through a teacher's mouth, is a very considerable determinant of a person's well-being. And that very same economics right now is putting a lot of working fathers and mothers on the street. This debate has been rather general, thus far. But let's not forget it's reach-in-topic is real. Millions of people have lost that state of well-being, and that's one thing that we have control over to fix. We should not give up that attempt for the sake of something perpetual in nature. In the truest sense, the economy ought to be taken care of first. In Conclusion That's all for now, I'll hand back over to Pro http://www.forbes.com... [1] http://useconomy.about.com...[2] http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com...[3] http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org... [4] http://american.com... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.wisegeek.com... [7] http://climatechange.procon.org... [8] http://climatechange.procon.org...[9] http://climatechange.procon.org... [10] http://climatechange.procon.org...[11] http://climatechange.procon.org...

Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

In conclusion the evidence is unmistakable. Everything points to the conclusion of anthropological global warming. With both graphs made from measured temperatures and from supercomputers performing trillions of calculations per second to simulate the physical laws governing the climate I have shown great evidence to support man made global warming. It has also been shown here that conspiracy theories are riddled throughout arguments provided by denialists. I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only appear in the long run on the order of centuries. Also that last graph did predict a fall in temperature quite accurately and it was CO2 centric.

Anthropogenic climate change.

Man made Global Warming? Yes and Man-Bear-Pig is real, Al Gore told me so.