args

Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

Kind Regards for you arguments. Also, I always back up my argument, otherwise it would be opinion and not a proper argument. Rebuttals and arguments: First and foremost I would like to refer to what I wrote in the comments, previous to Pro posting their statement. This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. As such I will simply quote myself, as to what I said in the comments: "I have studied agriculture, I know what effect agriculture has on the environment very well. However, the majority of agricultural problems arising are not simply from 'factory farming'. (And with that I mean environmental, not solely emission wise) But as for their sources, here's the list: http://www.cowspiracy.com...... I will analyse their sources on Greenhouse gases from top to bottom: 1.) I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias. 2.) Same again 3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths.. 4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic." Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and climate change, but only between Farming and Climate change. However, 'factory farming' makes up under 50% (around 40%) of animal related agriculture, and evidence suggests that non factory farmed animals produce more emission than 'factory farmed' animals, meaning that even they would have a higher emission than 'factory farming'. It is furthermore to state that the graph provided in round 1 is for the U.S, and it is to mention that the U.S. has one of the highest 'factory farming' sectors, with around 99% of agricultural animals held in the U.S. being held in 'factory farming' setting (https://www.aspca.org...). This would mean that, looking at above graph, factory farming most definitely is not the primary cause of man made global climate change. Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. Conclusion: This means that none of Pro's sources can be seen as evidence that Factory Farming is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.

CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

To conclude my case I would like to point out the obvious flaws in the opposition's previous case. They stated: "Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin." Once again I correct the affirmative on the correct wording of the topic. The topic of this debate is that CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change. Throughout their entire case the affirmative seems to be referring to their fictional topic of: CO2 is the largest factor in global warming. The affirmative also stated that my evidence was backing this fictional topic. Whilst this may be true, proving that CO2 emissions are not the largest factor of global warming only adds to the overall proof that they are not directly responsible for the effects. To clear confusion, the definition of directly responsible is: without anyone or anything intervening. Whilst the affirmative continued to provide arguments proving the existence of CO2 emissions as the largest factor, they did not provide any points stating the absence of an intervention. There are many examples of other processes in our natural world that are speeding up the global warming. Some of these include methane emissions from cattle, deforestation and chemical fertilisers on crop lands. Although the affirmative believes that CO2 emissions play the largest role in heating the planet, they are not the sole reason behind the issue. If the impossible event of a CO2 emission cease occurred, the Earth would still be heating up. Slowly but surely, the effects of the Earth's orbit and the causes mentioned above will continue to heat the planet that we live on today. The affirmative also stated: "the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing." In theory, this phrase mentions the effects on sun rays on Earth. Incredulously, even these sun rays play a role in global warming and further diminish the affirmatives picture of CO2 emissions being directly responsible. In a surprising twist to the debate, the affirmative suddenly seems to understand the topic of the debate towards the end of their case and produces the statement below. Unfortunately, it is also flawed. "CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it." Cold hard evidence against the point brought up by the affirmative can be found in my first argument. Global warming is simply defined as increasing temperatures on our planet. Carbon dating and a myriad of other scientific tests show the heating and cooling of the planet well before the involvement of the Industrial Revolution. If the planet was heating up during Medieval periods, how can the affirmative say that CO2 is the cause of global warming when the people of the past had not even heard of the word carbon? In finality, I am not denying the fact that global warming exists. I am not denying that CO2 emissions play a considerable role in the heating of our planet. However, I do deny the views of the affirmative in thinking the CO2 emissions play a sole role in global warming. There are many other factors that are also contributing to the heating of our planet. In further expansion, I deny the politicians and organisational leaders within our world. The planet is heating up and it is effecting ecosystems and environments alike. Whilst we sit here and debate whether CO2 emissions are directly responsible, politicians all over the globe are doing the same. It is time to stop the debate and face the fact that although CO2 emissions have played a big role in global warming, the gradual heating of our planet is totally inevitable. As an international force we need to combat global warming and thus climate change by investigating new methods of adapting to a changing climate. Cooling down the Earth by reducing CO2 emissions is a false statement because the Earth will continue to heat via its natural cycles which we as humans would be wrong to alter. As the negative side, I strongly believe that CO2 emissions are not directly responsible for climate change. Thank you.

Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

Correlations My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change. Arguing the correlation exists does not win the point, as I agree it exists, but the correlation is not strong enough to mean it is the “main” factor in climate change, therefore unless you prove the correlation is significantly high (like PDO) you cannot win this debate. And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph. The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data. Nearly all satellites show little to negative warming in the last decade. And, as stated, the correlation in the last decade was only 0.02. Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t. The correlation is therefore broken and the minute correlation shows human CO2 emissions likely cannot play a major role. My opponent continues global warming is a problem, I agree with him I never denied its existence, but we differ on whether CO2 is the driving factor. And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. And the suns correlation was higher by .10 R points. In other words, this point was not refuted. To the naked eye the graph is appealing, but to one that can actually read statistics presented in round two the correlation is extremely weak. So the facts show CO2 is not the main driver of climate. Examine my opponent’s graph. I made it easy: I suck at photo editing so I just threw on some paint. Every place I put a line is where correlation broke. Look at it. We see 3 – 4 (depending if you slur the first one together) areas where correlation fails! So even using my opponents eye appealing data, its flawed. And when you use the facts, its flawed. Either way, its apparent CO2 is not a main driver of climate. I also could have added even more as the rise in temperture in the 30s-40s was faster then CO2. So its another break in correlation. It's a very weak correlation is what it gets right down too. My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point. Other factors You are arguing the main factor in global warming is CO2, which you have failed to do. I offered many other factors, which together can explain for all of the warming, occurred. This is blatantly obvious. I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. Clarification was not needed, at all. I have shown CO2 logically based on science is not the [main] driver of climate and that other natural forgings are much stronger then man-made emissions. In reality, I extend arguments here as you have failed to prove that the PDO, with a stronger correlation, cannot account for the warming or the sun, with a stronger correlation and as the only heat source of our planet could not cause the majority of this warming. My opponent’s case My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate. Conclusion: I have done a few things: Proven a CO2 correlation is extremely weak, and the correlation it has is not sufficient to prove it’s the main factor in the current climate I have shown, using my opponents data nonetheless, that the correlation is not as perfect as he makes it out to be and that the correlation in the last decade is almost zero – in other words no match at all. I have shown natural forgings have correlations sometimes of over twice the amount of CO2, and that this means it is likely a larger player in climate then CO2 is. Basically in sum: the debate is over whether or not CO2 is the main factor in the current warming, and my opponent has failed to prove it is the main factor, and has failed to prove why natural forgings cannot explain the rise. In that case, by logic, Con wins. You know and my opponent having the BOP and not having a case… that means I just win by default as he has not fulfilled his burden.

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...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Your lack of rebuttals makes me think you're stumped. You only responded to one thing I said because you think it is the only important thing I said, and didn't even bother to bring up the evidence I used to support it. You simply said that Co2 levels are higher then we expected. Which is not what I said was expected, what I said is that a warming trend is expected, as we have recently entered an inter galacial period as part of the paleostine ice age. You see, the climate is constantly changing, and my point was that the Co2 theory is becoming more and more flawed. Now you bring up hurricanes, again, this is all part of the warming trend. And anyway, if you really do want to help countries in danger because of hurricanes, then you are on the wrong path. When a developed country gets hit by a hurricane, the effects are far less devastating than when a hurricane or typhoon hits a less developed country. Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of Mainly because of low quality shelter. This causes that country's economy to crash. So if you are really concerned about hurricane damage, then get of the problem of climate change, and focus on bringing those countries out of poverty. Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates. Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.

Climate Shift

Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.