args

Nuclear energy is 0-emissions; addresses climate change threat.

Nuclear energy does not emit carbon emissions in its inherent energy extraction process, although some carbon is emitted in the manufacture of plants, etc. This means it is a key weapon in the climate change fight. Dealing with the waste problem with underground storage is, therefore, also key in this fight.

Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

The governments of the world need to wake up to the reality of man made global warming which is leading to climate change. The planet is getting hotter every decade and this is leading to more radical and extreme weather patterns. This is and will continue to bring about more droughts, More flooding, More storms and more natural disasters. This will not only kill people but also severely impact economies and put our societies at grave risk. 97 percent of the scientific community and all scientific authorities support the theory of man-made climate change. Therefore we must trust our scientists and the overwhelming body of evidence and take action to reduce emissions. We can use more renweable energy, Ban certain exhaust fumes, Eventually ban diesel cars, Put into place taxes on carbon and have stricter environmental controls. This will help to reduce our cause of global warming and thus is a necessary and workable solution to this very grave threat. Good luck to my opponent.

Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.

Let"s start out with the "have to" part of the motion. While I agree with you that it invokes a moral obligation, I also see a second practical part in it. The practical part is, as I have described, the necessity to help in order for any of our own work against global warming to have any effect. If we switch our economy towards sustainable, clean energy this will, at least at the start, be more costly than just using coal and gas, which will make production more expensive. As the market goes to the lowest cost it will give those developing countries, which just have no other chance of building an economy that is stable as they lack the financial recourses, the incentive to fill the gap created with cheaper production on the costs of the environment leading in total to no positive effect for our climate. In addition to that point we have the problem of a growing population in those developing countries. As they will with time demand a similar standard of living to the developed world, it will again go on the costs of our climate. We can"t change this wish for a higher standard of living, which also brings us into the moral sphere. We can"t prevent this from happening, but we can prevent the growth of the population as, as we have always seen, an increase in the education and standard of living diminishes the growth in population. Those countries need to get to an acceptable standard of living to prevent an explosion in the population and harm to the environment. This increase in the standard of living can"t be achieved by the countries without help as they lack the financial capacities, which is why they need financial aid and this is especially important if we want them to do this economic growth it in a sustainable way. We need to create the incentive for them to do it in such a way. Now this is our moral obligation as we have always developed our wealth on the oppression of the weaker countries. The second part of our moral obligation lies in the fact that we are the cause of the major problem of climate change. Our behavior in the last centuries and also now is the reason for the development, which is why it is our obligation to pay the costs. If we don"t want other countries which develop now to use exactly the same way of developing their industry we have to pay for it, as we can"t just say that they aren"t allowed to do so, while we were. This is why both on a practical and a moral level we are obliged to pay for the development in the developing countries even though it both fights climate change. Now to your points. The first one is again that the foreign aid isn"t sufficiently effective as a means to improve their industry. While I have to agree in some cases, I have to object to the generalization. Foreign aid is the main reason many of the developing countries even have any stable economy and only with financial aid it is possible to build such an economy. While the industry that is established there is still in no way close to friendly to the environment, we can"t be surprised as I have explained above. We need to make the availability of new technology in this field better and also have to increase our financial aid in order for them to have any chance of using sustainable sources of energy in their industry. Your model of cutting aid won"t result in a benefit for the climate but rather in the inability to innovate from a now insufficient economy towards an industry that is sustainable. Also we have to be giving stronger incentives to direct the funds towards sustainability which hasn"t been done so far which is another reason for why we can"t expect results already in this direction. Your second point starts out self contradicting, but the argument is that due to other problems in the country the aid won"t be used to prevent global warming. I have to agree that as I have said before we have to increase the incentives for actually doing it as well as try to lower the cost of the technology. But also I think that the solution of the other problems is connected to the solution of the problem of climate change. If you have a poor population with a low standard of living in a country with a weak economy, the people will use what they can use in order to survive. The concern for the climate, while mostly having the biggest impacts right there in those countries, is still a secondary problem of the future that won"t be tackled if left by itself, as there are more urgent problems. This will stay exactly this way until a development is finished as all this time the least expensive mean will be taken in order to reach the goal of economic growth and better living conditions. Now if we want them to not do this we have to solve those problem which is always only possible if we allow economic growth in those countries and if we don"t want that growth to be on the shoulders of our climate, we have to pay the gap towards them being able to do it with clean energy and stress it with incentives. Therefore we need again an increase in foreign help, which, as I have explained above, is our duty to provide in order for them to build an industry that is clean and sustainable. To conclude I also think that it is a global problem but the main thing we can"t forget is that it is a global problem produced by the now developed countries and that if we wish for other countries to go through their development in a different way, we are the ones obliged to pay for it.

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

There is simply not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any dramatic climate change. The Earth's climate has changed in the past but this was due to volcanic activity. Volcanoes can expell a thousand times more CO2 than what humans can achieve. A volcanoe expells other sulpher based gases which cause a shielding effect in the upper atmosphere. This is what happened during the Dark Ages when sunlight was reduced and a mini ice age occurred. Human's are like microscopic organisms on the surface of the Earth. Our combined mass is insufficient to be able the affect the huge mass of the Earth. This is just a matter of understanding basic heat transfer science in relation to two objects of dissimilar size and mass.

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

My opponent doesn't understand basic physics and mathematics of heat exchange between two objects. One of these objects is the Earth which would be represented by a 100 kilometre beach of sand and humanity which would be accurately measured as 3 grains of sand. Now, Regardless of how much heat those 3 grains of sand produce, They are incapable of effecting the temperature of the 100 kilometre beach of sand. This is a logical conclusion which involves a small amount of commonsense. Ref - The Vostok ice Core and the 14, 000 year CO2 time lag. CO2 levels follow temperature. Temperature doesn't follow CO2. Thus, CO2 levels have nothing to do with climate but are just a result of a changing climate. Earth cycles are more likely to change climate. The Earth has a wobble which takes 32 thousand years for one full cycle. In 16 thousand years the Northern and Southern hemispheres will have opposite seasons to what they have now.

Human caused climate change is nonsense

Well, It looks like you need everything in triplicate or you don't believe it. You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Watts up with that? Website - "hide the decline" - worse than we thought We see the actual email with references to cutting off Keith Biffa's data and deleting many sections in the records including 1940's to 1960's. video - The in depth story behind a You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Watts up with that? Website - "hide the decline" - worse than we thought We see the actual email with references to cutting off Keith Biffa's data and deleting many sections in the records including 1940's to 1960's. video - The in depth story behind a climate fraud. There are many tricks that debaters use to fool people. One is supplying very short answers which don't address the issues in any depth.

The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

Full topic: The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true or false is to dramatically reduce man made levels of Co2. We need to take drastic measures to reduce man made Co2 levels ASAP. I've become convinced of this due to the climate change deniers. Simply, put the climate change deniers are correct, there is not enough evidence. Therefore, we need to accumulate more evidence via experimentation. Thus far all we have done is endlessly discuss if climate change is real or false and collecting observation evidence. Empirical evidence is split into two grounds. A. Observation evidence B. Scientific experiments All I've seen is A, thus far. We need B, and we need to know soon. The only way I can imagine to test this theory of global climate change is via experimentation. We must take control and change a variable. I vote Co2 is the best variable. Now as Co2 as the variable we have two choices, to raise or lower Co2 levels. Considering it would be immoral to raise Co2 levels given the observation evidence, we can only lower Co2 levels. Since a small decrease in Co2 levels would be more difficult to determine, a large decrease in amount of Co2 produced by man made sources is the only solution. That way if climate change is caused by a confounding factor we will have a better chance of acknowledging that confounding factor and taking corrective actions. To recap, we need more evidence for whether or not climate change is true in the form of experimental evidence. Lowering man-made Co2 dramatically is the best and only moral option. Thanks for reading and accepting the debate in advance.