args

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

I see the point you are trying to get at is that we have no evidence, As far as current effects are, Focusing more on the questionability of prediction models. In that case, Here is a model that measures the average global temperature up to 2018. It's clear from the graph that the global temperature is increasing at an exponential rate: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ But as for your skepticism on the weight that our civilization takes for the problem of climate change, Here also is a graph showing the CO2 levels in the air throughout the 1980s, To the year 2017: http://berkeleyearth. Org/2018-temperatures/ Notice that despite the larger timeframes between the two graphs, Both correlate. Around the point were CO2 emissions go up, The temperature for the corresponding year also goes up. I think it's obvious that this drastic rise in CO2 is our fault, Considering the first graph starts to show the temperature rise in the 1860s, The tail end of the industrial revolution.

The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org...

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

*Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of "they" until the very end! :) Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations. His first observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely has an effect on climate. His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He is correct in saying that a consensus is more scientific then a home experiment but a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus. My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim. I run into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence. (keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong with the models. In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect. My opponent then says, "my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane. My opponent also says there is an undoubted correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007). As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time, Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Then, in my opponents fifth point, he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural." This is just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only in the last 1000 years! Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that is what they were planning to debate. In my opponents case he just states everything that I have already disproven. He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere. He says humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...) Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease. To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or not. After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence. True evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible. In conclusion, I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.

CCS will take far too long to implement for climate change

Rainforest Action Network, an environmental non-profit organization, stated the following in a fact sheet on its website titled "The Dirty Truth about Clean Coal," available at www.ran.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2009): "The concept of CCS is that we can curb climate change by capturing the emissions from coal plants and store them underground, safely away from our atmosphere for eternity. The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS technology is not likely to be a commercially viable option for at least another decade, and new coal-fired plants are slated to begin construction now. There are also no working models of CCS at a commercial-scale power plant anywhere in the world."