args

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

Zarul: 1. You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. Reply: No, it's not hypothetical because what is being debated is one variable about demand for trees. If you want more trees, you want the demand for trees to be as high as possible and recycling paper prevents that. What recycling doesn't have an effect on is saving native forests, which I will get to later. Zarul: As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Reply: Go to Office Max, go to the paper section. Recycled on one self, non-recycled on the other. They are competing. Zarul: "Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. Zarul: A.When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment." Reply: Yes, and then you plant it again and it grows back. Zarul: B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. …if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. Reply: Yes, they keep growing. But what you are leaving out is that they only keep growing in one direction because gravity takes a toll after a while—That's why trees don't grow to be the size of sky scrappers. Trees have an initial growth spurt where they use the most carbon dioxide (growing in two dimensions) and then level off. Old forests really do little for carbon dioxide regulation. http://www.usatoday.com... Zarul: D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. Reply: 1. Leaves are what regulate carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis separates the carbon from the oxygen and stores the carbon in the wood and roots. 2. The discussion was about climate change, not biodiversity or soil erosion. With breakthroughs in genetic mapping, we don't need nature to be the record keeper of genetics. Erosion is a natural process, but can be accelerated by human interaction. Luckily since about the middle ages we have figured out to reduce this with field rotation, and other modern methods. So for point E: If the land were privately held, the tree farmer would keep it at a minimum to ensure more growth and higher profits. Zarul: F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. Reply: How do species going extinct cause climate change? CO2 is the end product of metabolism. If anything, that would lead to less carbon dioxide. Ofcourse I'm not saying we should kill off every animal because they produce C02, just that you need to think through some more about what climate change is. Zarul: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. Reply: No, the countries that contribute the most to climate change are Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. http://news.bbc.co.uk... The number one cause of deforestation is clearing of land for farming. Urban development, mining, oil extraction, and logging are others. Paper has little to do with virgin forests. By making tree farming more profitable, you are encouraging that at least some of that land will be kept for re-growing trees. Zarul: Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. Reply: No, it would most likely be an American or European country that makes the discovery and uses it in lands in other countries. Why this hasn't happened yet is a separate issue dealing with farm welfare in America and Europe. Zarul: "You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? Reply: Where the national ones are now. If you are poor and the forest is what stands in your way of planting a crash crop, then you will cut it down. If we didn't recycle paper, trees would be more valuable as a resource, so instead of cutting down the forest to farm wheat, you might be more inclined to cut down the forest and replant it. (ofcourse, there are also some trade policies that affect this, but that is neither here nor their) Zarul: My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. Reply: The burden of proof is on you. Zarul: You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved." Reply: Because it is happening now, and the deforestation has little to do with paper and more to do with clearing land for farming other things. By not recycling paper, you are encouraging the farming of trees over other things. Zarul: Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. Reply: But the new wood is picked up from one centralized location—where it is being farmed. To recycle paper you have to have several trucks drive vast distances to collect what amounts to little paper per unit of distance traveled. If it were so much cheaper to recycle, then private companies would have started doing it a long time ago. Instead the government has to subsidies it (with money taken by force), which hides the true costs. Follow the prices. Zarul: C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. Reply: No they won't. We can afford to waste money on recycling because we are rich. Recycling is not an industry. Here is the fallacy of that argument: Suppose I went around every house on my block and broke a window by throwing a rock through it. The person who fixes windows would get a lot of business. Is this helping the economy? No, because the money people spend on fixing their windows means they have to forgo something else—instead of buying a new window, they could have bought some new pants.So you see recycling as creating jobs, so it must be good for the economy, but you are forgetting that by creating those jobs, you are forgoing spending that money on something. That's all I could fit in. Well done, good luck to you.

Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.

What does subways have to do with climate change? Even though the idea of subways was to allow freedom of movement at all times, it is still a idea or vision for the subway and that does not mean it works in practice. Putting the subways aside; no it is not always that the weather forecasts are exact, but they are very often right. When we see a weather forecast, you are right that they are not 100% right, but there is a good reason for that. When you have to forecast the weather, you look at the different pressures in the different areas and thereby predicting e.g. a storms movement a behaviour. So when you see a weather forecast, it is 100% right if nothing in the pressure changed since it was made. Climate change and weather forecast are scientifically proved. Since we can measure the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere which is 0.06%, while it was 0.05% 50 years ago. That's an increase on 20% which is obvious with the boom in the oil industry.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent accepts that his first argument is a correlation so there is no need to strengthen my argument there. My opponents second argument states, """When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.""" To disprove this I will do it line by line. Line 1: When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit This line is true but only in some cases. For example, the mini ice age, which we exited 1000 years ago, was not initiated by changes in the earths orbit. Line 2: This line is just wrong. The oceans do store Co2 but what is released when they warm is mostly water vapor, not Co2. This water vapor then causes more clouds which then cools the Earth. This is common knowledge among scientists because this is exactly how cosmic rays cause cooling. Line 3: Yes, rising temperature causes more Co2 to be released but by simply looking at ice core data we can see that this does not cause an infinite rise in temperature. The temperature then drops and rises again independent of the Co2 that was released from the previous rise. For an example, look at this graph: http://www.geocraft.com... My opponents next argument is just plain wrong. My opponent states, ""Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." " To disprove this all you need to do is read the caption at the top of the graph below where it lists its source. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... As you can see, the graph was not based on temperature estimates but the "global mean temperature change..." I don't know where you got the idea that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998 but from your sources it seems that this data is only true once you remove the El Nino. My question to you is why hasn't the Earth warmed since the El Nino. In the 20 years since the temperature maximum temperature doesn't increase at all. In addition to this, the El Nino just proves the fact that there are other influences in climate that influence temperature more then Co2 or enough to distort data. For my opponents next argument he states that my source is not credible. This is just not true. Just because the maker of the website is paid to research evidence against man made global warming does not immediately make all of his evidence untrue. My opponent does not provide any actual contrary evidence to debate this point but to satisfy their needs I will give a link to multiple graphs sourced from other websites showing the same thing. http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.drroyspencer.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com... My opponents next argument is not relevant to man made climate change. My opponents next argument states, "Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5] As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. " I will cede this point to my opponent as it is a result of warming and not relevant to man causing the warming. I should not have brought it up and while I still have arguments to dispute it do not wish to argue this view any longer. As for why the documentary was manipulated, I do not wish to argue this any more either for the same reasons listed above nevertheless I will provide a short article to explain my first argument. I know that the article does not provide much info on the subject but if you really want to understand the argument then you need to research it yourself. http://www.newsmax.com... Nextl, to strengthen my point of the debate, I will argue that Earth is not the only planet warming. The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field, Jupiter"s "white ovals" are disappearing and melding together in its atmosphere (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. As you can see from the long paragraph I have provided above, the entire Solar System seems to be warming or experiencing some sort of weird climate change patterns. This indicates more then just a global event. To conclude my argument, I will provide a graph of Co2 and Temperature over the long term that should, on its own, disprove entirely the idea of man-made climate change. http://www.paulmacrae.com...

Humans cause climate changing

In response to my contention that the planet does not need humans in order for the climate to change, my opponent has simply stated that, it was 248 Million years ago, implying, I assume, that this is not relevant to today's climate. The problem with this statement is twofold. First of all, the Mesozoic Era ended in the late Cretaceous, which was 65 Million years ago as opposed to 248. That's considerably closer to modern time. Also, in the period closer to us, there was no Ice at The poles. [1] The second issue I have with this rebuttal is that the Mesozoic era is not the only example of pre-industrial age climate change. In fact, duing the last 2 billion years the earths climate has been fluctuating between a "hot house" and an "Ice House", clearly illustrated in the chart below: Taken from http://www.scotese.com... [2] In fact, If you look at the chart, you notice that, for a long period of time we have had a downwards trend in the climate of the earth. This is infact, the longest downward trend in recorded history. So we are actually long overdue for a warming earth, and when you look at the big picture, the logical thing for the earth is for it to keep warming as it has in the past. Next we move on to my opponents next point, about humans actually having deliberately influenced the weather. While at first it may seem like this is an insurmountable argument for man-made climate change, it is actually rather irrelevant. You see, what my opponent has failed to take into account is the difference between climate and weather. Climate is defined as: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. [3] So humans deciding that they do not want it to rain tomorrow is not an example of climate change, it is an example of weather change. Even a nuclear explosion, which will change the weather for perhaps a few months, is still not climate change, as it has not had a sustained, long term affect on the climate. The very article that Pro provides to substantiate his claim that CO2 emissions by humans are the leading cause of climate chanche clearly lists water vapour as the most common greenhouse gas found in the atmosphere. And how does water vapour get into the atmosphere? By evaporation powered by the sun, not by humans. And while I will conceded that humans are the No.1 producer of CO2 in the world, as I said in my previous argument, methane, a common natural gas, is actually more effective at trapping head than Carbon Dioxide. A single volcano, such as Mount Eyjafjoell in Iceland, can produce around 300,000 tonnes of CO2 per day. This places the one volcano alone above countries such as Austria, Portugal and Ireland in terms of emmisions. In conclusion I have clearly demonstrated how the earths climate can easily change, and has been changing, without any help from man, how many made weather is not climate change and how human CO2 emission is not such a big problem as we think it is. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com... [2] http://www.scotese.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

Outline I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. V. Climate has steadily increased VI. Conclusion VII. Works cited Round three rebuttals. I will now respond to my opponent’s round one and two arguments. In round four I will respond to round three and round five I will respond to round four. This is out of fairness since my opponent will not get a chance to respond to my round five. I. Co2 reaches higher point in atmosphere and saturation point myth When you add more Co2 to the atmosphere, The Co2 reaches a higher point in space, Increasing the greenhouse warming effect. The greenhouse warming effect is nowhere near saturation. The myth revolves around the misrepresentation that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, So therefore, Greenhouse warming is at a saturation point. While it is true that Co2 reaches a saturation point at the surface, Some of the heat escapes further up into the atmosphere. Thus, More Co2 will reach further into the atmosphere. Insert picture of Australia and heat rising if possible from skepticalscience. Dana1981 updated July 2015. [5] II. Scientists disagreeing with climate science. First, There are climate change scientists, And they are only about 100 of them, They are experts within experts on climate change. Second, There are many scientists who disagree about climate change in less related fields, And they still have their jobs. Source Denial 101x course. III. Humans mass versus Earth mass. A virus is very small compared to a human. Yet, The measles virus kills over 100, 000 people a year. The flu viruses kills 291, 000 and 646, 000 people each year. Source CDC [6]. Viruses are measured in nanometer or one billionth of a meter. Source [7] britannica. Com That’s one millionth of a millimeter. Now if viruses kill humans everyday it is very possible for humans to act like a virus and destroy the atmosphere of the Earth. Destroying the Earth as in Darth Vader and the Death Star would be extremely difficult given our current level of technology, But destroying the atmosphere. Yes, Very feasible. Two main ways, One global cooling through nuclear winter. Option two, Global warming through greenhouse gas emission. IV. Anti-government fear mongering. First, I will add that governments historically have performed terrible atrocities, Slaves of Sparta, Slaughter of native Americans Indians during colonial times, Slave state of blacks in southern USA, The Armenian genocide, WWII holocaust of the Jews, And many more. Therefore, The instigator is correct to have a baseline level of mistrust for government. Yet, This mistrust is taken too far and thus extreme. I concur that Iraq probably was about the oil and not about freedom. Yet, Of that long list of conspiracy theories that is the only point I agree with. The world did not go into an Ice Age because we stopped using aerosols that damaged the ozone layer which also caused global cooling. Most of the conspiracies seemed to be linked to medical and viruses which is off-topic and pseudoscience. Ironically the instigator is the one who is confused by invisible monsters. Quacks constantly fear monger. Brain fog, Leaky gut syndrome, chemtrails, BPA, and many more invisible monsters to scare innocents out of money. BPA for example there just is not enough information according to sciencebasedmedicine. Org Steven Novella September 17th 2008. Just look at this sentence “Thus, The world governments constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science to trick and fool the masses into believing all their nonsenses. This is done to herd the masses into a frenzy of confusion. A confused mass of people hasn't got time to look at the people who are causing all this confusion because they are so preoccupied in running and hiding form the invisible monsters that the governments creates to scare them. ” Akhenaten Just replace governments with quacks. Thus, The world quacks constantly produce an endless stream of nonsense science. A confused mass of people has not got time because they are so preoccupied running and hiding from invisible monsters that the quacks create to scare them. V. Climate has steadily increased I will now respond to round one. Here is a picture, Hopefully of how ocean water temperatures have steadily increased. Yes climate change is human made, The change is mostly due to Co2 from burning of fossil fuels via industrial activities. About the communists and dictators this is an inflammatory, False accusation, And bare assertion. Finally, The link between climate change and communist shows overt conservative bias on the instigator’s part, Reds under the bed mentality. Most like this person has a high belief in free market and thus disbelieving climate change on those grounds. Deciding that climate change is false and then looking for evidence to back up the decision as opposed to looking for evidence first and then a conclusion. I learned the above from the denial 101x course about deniers come to a conclusion first and look for evidence second. The conclusion is based upon strong belief in a free market economy. VI. Conclusion I have show how my opponent’s claim about Co2 saturation is misleading since Earth is nowhere near a greenhouse saturation point. Co2 is only saturated at the surface, But some of the heat escapes higher into the atmosphere and then trapped by Co2 higher in the atmosphere. I have disproved my opponent’s claim about scientists being fired for disagreeing with climate change, Plenty in unrelated fields do and keep their jobs. I have shown that humans can have a tremendous impact on the climate despite having a small mass compared to the Earth. First, With an analogy of a virus to a human. Despite the virus being much smaller, Still being able to kill humans. Second, Humans could easily cause a nuclear winter and thus global cooling. Finally, Global warming can be caused via excessive atmospheric Co2. Quacks are doing the fear mongering, Not governments. Global warming is occurring now costing 150, 000 lives annually and can be seen by rising ocean temperatures. VII. Works cited debate. Org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/4346963/ Hopefully this work cited works. I had to give up on the pictures was not posting.