args

Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change This debate would be done in a form somewhat similar to Public Forum debate N is Negative A is Affirmative Rules: 1 N: Introductory statements/ Definitions 1 A: Acceptance/First constructive speech 2 N: Constructive speech 2 A: Rebuttal on N constructive 3 N: Rebuttal on A constructive 3 A: Summary (Refutation on rebuttal) 4 N: Summary 4 A: Final Focus (Why our side wins the debate) 5 N: Final Focus/ Closing statements 5 A: Closing statements Definitions: Developed countries are countries that tend to have the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, have well-developed basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society, or a infrastructure for transportation, communications, and energy. These countries, the wealthiest nations in the world, include Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China, India, Pakistan and Russia are not considered "developed" The definition of moral means right as opposed to something which is wrong. An obligation is a promise, duty or commitment. So we can say a moral obligation is a duty to take an action which is right (moral). A moral obligation does not mean one has a legal obligation but one can argue that fulfilling a legal obligation is a moral obligation. For example I may have a moral obligation to help my neighbor, but there is no legal requirement for me do so. If I choose not to fulfill my moral obligation to help, the police will not be knocking on my door. Mitigate to lessen, make less severe or painful. Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. For example: more or fewer extreme weather events.

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

I will now make a brief summary of my argument for round one. In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic climate change has a 97% scientific consensus, Is an existential threat, And the main driver is co2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels. I want to thank the instigator for this debate.

developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

I would like to pull through my points on the already funded programmes that are unsuccessful. It does not make sense to keep throwing money at a programme that does not work. also NASA stated that climate change is a natural effect. Also, according to the Social Contract no nation has an obligation to any other. Why should America care about what happens in Congo? They don't have to. Which is why I urge your vote in CON.

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

First off, I hope for a productive debate. Please be sure to use legitimate sources to back your argument up and I will do likewise. Let's agree, What is climate change? Rising ambient temperatures? Holes in the ozone? Rising sea levels? Increase in greenhouse gases?

Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Everything you say about the environment and the state it is in is a political view point. Everything you say about the climate is a political view point. everything you say about the coming doom for humanity is a political view point. "CO2 does cause a warming. Its a simple fact. Carbon Gas has a unique chemical structure that allows it to insulate and trap heat. There fore if we pump massive quantities on a global level then if we tip the balance we will have warming. Its physically impossible to think otherwise" There are thousands and thousands of credible scientists that disagree with you. But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the But the science does not matter it is a political view point. It is not settled science and you are a bald face liar when you say this. You still trust the words of a man who touts Hydrogen has the next great fuel source, Mind boggling. And now you expect everyone to believe what you say Now catalytic converters pollute the atmosphere, again mind boggling because no car in the U.S is allowed not to have one built after 1970 something I suppose you have a replacement for that right? It is your word against mine there is far more peer review evidence to disprove you that's why you have such difficulty coming up with peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. I don't believe you provided a single peer reviewed source. The study of the climate is a waste of tax payers money. Anything and everything that would contradict what you say will never be reported to the people to look at. The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics. Name one scientists that will categorically state as fact and put their reputation on the line as a scientist that Co2 is causing the climate to warm. This should be really easy to do as it is "impossible to not think otherwise" All that really matters is this last question. I want to know who this scientists is and look at their research.

The climate is not "a changing".

A couple interesting statements Cumulative sea level, According to the EPA, Has risen 8 inches since 1880. This is a primary indicator of climate change, Whether it’s caused by anthropogenic activity is debatable. Smaller low-level islands are being submerged by the rising sea level, And not necessarily by volcanos. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to increase surface temperature, Here an on other planets. Response to my opponent He stated, Among other things, Data gathered from islands or areas near volcanos or the ring of fire is invalid. This is simply not the case, And this would discount any data gathered from the pacific rim including his own reference. On the logarithmic effect of Carbon Dioxide Our production of CO2 has been increasing exponentially, With a linear effect on temperature. So, While the impact of CO2 lessens after a certain point we will continue the linear increase of mean global temperatures due to our proportionally increased CO2 production (assuming nothing changes). On Antarctica Antarctica is melting, That much should be apparent. According to some estimates, The ice is melting six times faster than it did 40 years ago. When ice melts it briefly cools around it’s surroundings, Think about an icecube in a cup of water. This means Antarctica’s temperature will not necessarily be consistent with the rest of the world, And will in some cases get sporadically colder as large chunks of ice melt. So, With my opponents theory, He himself has provided evidence for climate change. If the earth relies upon Antarctica for cooling, And Antarctica is melting, Then global warming is causing climate change.