args

Global Warming is Real

Ok well if you really want to start this. 1. "There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man." You must not read a lot! There are a MILLION scientific facts about global warming. 2. "Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012." There, right there, you literally just proved my point that global warming is real. Arctic ice has been up to 50% when it should be up to 100%, but there, it's not. 3. Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but they have also been right over and over. Nothing you have said has disproved the giant hole in the ozone above the arctic. 4. "Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong" What predictions! There's been A LOT of predictions, some wrong, some right! Oh right, this "Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists" Yeah, you probably couldn't hear what I was saying, because you didn't disprove anything!

The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

Thank you for your response! "Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent." I certainly hope that you read my source #2 (relisted here for your convenience as source [1]). That very clearly spelled out what scientists know. The burden of proof therefore lies upon you to disprove those facts laid out by the EPA. "This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true." I bring you, again, to the EPA site that I sourced. "So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt." I have addressed both these claims. "I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently." I totally agree. Luckily I proved it. "For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic" Check your link. I find it completely unnecessary to address this argument, but I will just for fun. August of 2008, as of when this article was written, was the month that saw the fastest loss of Arctic ice in recorded history [2]. "Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact." That is an argument that I've never understood. If there is any speculation at all that humans are a major cause of global warming, shouldn't we stay on the safe side? If it turns out it wasn't caused by humans, we won't really be affected (other than maybe being a little smarter, healthier and happier), and if it is caused by humans, well, we would have saved the planet. On the other hand, if you choose not to protect the environment, if you're right then nothing will happen, but if you're wrong then you will have allowed something horrible to happen that was largely or completely preventable. We only have one planet, so we should respect it. "I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million." I apologize. That was part typo and part stupid mistake. I often argue this for Oregon, which does have approximately 3 million people. In any case, I meant to say 300 million, and that only makes my point stronger. "If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable." Time out. I never said the government should regulate their private life. The government can't do that. The reforms which I proposed were all corporate and governmental. Through availability and convenience, the people will naturally change what they do. "Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are?" Obviously they won't completely go away, I'm not an idealist. But I can guarantee you that their use will diminish very substantially. If you have to pay for every single bag you get from the grocery store, obviously people will be much more inclined to reduce and reuse. I don't think anybody could truthfully deny that. "So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly?" Taxes are the right answer. Even if they weren't, it would probably increase recycling substantially if all states had deposits on their bottled and canned beverages (I have gotten quite a bit of money returning cans and bottles). But taxing would work. And your "idea," well, see the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. "When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem." See my argument about taking initiative. "Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org......) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy." First of all, that link shows Antarctic ice. Arctic ice has decreased. Also, I really don't know what to say to those statistics, other than the fact that 2009 was an El Nino year, which affects different parts of the world differently. In the case of Antarctica, it actually cools it down a bit. Now, here is where your logical fallacy comes into place. El Nino events are caused by the heating of the East Pacific. We have seen more El Nino years than ever recently, and the only explanation for that is climate change (and that is exactly why I don't call it global warming, even though the mean temperature had steadily increased [3]). The fact is, you have very little evidence rejecting climate change, yet there is as plethora of evidence supporting it [Every single source I posted]. If you don't believe me, ask Mohammed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives, who has to handle a very unique situation. See, the country that he leads is very literally in danger of disappearing to rising sea levels [5]. "In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world." Not per capita. Yes, the whole world needs to change, but America is grossly overstepping its bounds, so it is high time that we lead the rest of the world in changing what we do. "So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not?" You seem very set in the idea that we're being "punished." It is not in any way a punishment to lead our country in doing the right thing. "And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us"." You may call them scare tactics, but, as Mohammed Nasheed or any Maldivian will tell you, unless people realize the full scope and potential of the issue, people will die. There will be very real devastating effects of climate change. You may write them off as scare tactics, but I am simply stating very blunt facts in a very blunt way, and I feel that that is warranted. I could mention that warmer oceans make more (and stronger) hurricanes and other extreme weather events [6], but I'm not going to because those are "scare tactics." I am eagerly awaiting your response! 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.treehugger.com... (look familiar?) 3. http://www.stormfax.com... 4. http://www.newscientist.com... 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 6. http://www.epa.gov...

ManBearPig is real.

Round two arguments Picture of consensus studies. [1] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [1] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [3] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [4] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [5] Human fingerprint picture. [6] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. Sources. 1. https://skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.climatecentral.org... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. https://skepticalscience.com... 6. https://skepticalscience.com...

Reduced emissions from RES may have no impact on climate change

Jonathan DuHamel. "National Renewable Energy Standard Will Mean Higher Electricity Bills." Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thereby forestall global warming (now “climate disruption”) although there is no credible evidence that reduced emissions will have a measurable effect on climate."

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power. To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe. And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES. My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol ) So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ? 1) Contraceptions are free and widely available 2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also ) 3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education. 4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle ) Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" .... "Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol check out these links http://cgge.aag.org... It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact http://www.childtrends.org... this deals with children of educated parents research http://www.nytimes.com... psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than on climate change.note am a new debator