args

Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

Maurice You still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem. 2. Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see: https://skepticalscience.com...; 3. Sea levels. This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources. (#4 doesn't exist for some reason) 5. Appeal to authority. Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org...; Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr????" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it. Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this. CONCLUSION I strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.

Global Warming is real, get over it.

"You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring." Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'. "The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS)" I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... "Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven." The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works. I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it.

ManBearPig is real.

Round two arguments Picture of consensus studies. [2] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [2] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [3] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [4] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [5] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [6] Human fingerprint picture. [7] 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. A person may ask, but is there not natural sources of Co2? Yes, but natural sinks of Co2 outweigh natural sources. Meaning nature is a net sink of Co2. This can be seen by more Co2 going into the ocean than out and the resulting ocean acidification. Sources 2. https://skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.climatecentral.org... 4. https://www.epa.gov... 5. https://skepticalscience.com... 6. https://skepticalscience.com... 7. https://skepticalscience.com...

Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.

You said all other things being equal, if we follow this we are turning this into a completely hypothetical debate, and means this debate would serve no purpose, it would be totally pointless. You have to consider reality. The impact of recycling simply is not that great on the tree farming industry. Even recycled paper requires a certain amount of new pulp to be added. As well, not everyone differentiates between reycled and non-recycled paper, and this means that the two are not always competing. Essentially, your next point is rather similar to the first, but I will say that if recycled paper has an effect on the demand for new paper, it is very small. New paper still greatly outweights old paper in terms of production. I was saying that with the rising demand, the amount of trees would either slowly grow, or at least stay neutral. 2. Onto the subject of natural forests v. farmed forests. A. When you cut down a tree, you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide it will be using, and thus it will be less useful to the environment. B. Older trees do not stop growing unless they are dead. Perhaps you've seen the rings? In any case, an older/larger tree will always use more carbon dioxide than a smaller one, such as the ones coming from a tree farm. C. Cutting down forests will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they use, if they are smaller, they do not need as much carbon dioxide as they did when they were bigger, it's pretty simple. D. Of course commercial trees have roots, but they don't have as developed of a root system. You also didn't deny that farmed trees are less beneficial when it comes to biodiversity and preventing erosion, which takes me to the next point. E. If more soil erodes, then there will be less trees/plants. Farmed forests do not have the developed root system to prevent this. Erosion leads to less land for plants/trees to grow on, which means the forest will be using up less carbon dioxide (and therefore less beneficial to the environment). F. Plants dying can cause other animals to die as well. Because all the ecosystems on earth are inter-related, this can have adverse effects on life everywhere, and further climate change. 2. I don't think you understood me, so here I go: A. Non-developed nations (which contribute more to climate change than developed ones) do not have tree-farming industries, if they need paper, they are going to chop down forests. B. These countries tend not to replant the forests, and if they do not recycle, they will simply cut down more and more. C. Recycling is the key to protecting these developed native forests. These forests also have great amounts of plant life that will be lost if the trees are cut down. The loss of all these plants/trees is bad for the environment, and this clear-cutting will create a sort of desert, one where erosion occurs, and it becomes even more difficult to replant. Continuation of 2. : Ah yes, a poor country genetically-engineering its crops. That's honestly not going to happen, although it would certainly be a good thing. And even if it did, progress would be too slow. I never said that commercial forests do nothing for the environment, simply that established forests do more, and you have not been able to refute this. You say that these forests stand in the way of growth? Than where will these countries plant these commercial forests, if they have not the room for national ones? My entire point is that recycling could preserve these forests, and you haven't proven that this isn't true. You just say that it will happen anyway, but if these countries recycle, they will not need to cut down these old forests. With a little bit of replanting, and a lot of recycling, these important forests can be saved. 3. Recycling is cheaper than manufacturing A. Recycling is simply cheaper than manufacturing. Commercial forests require massive amounts of fertilizer and water. This costs a great deal of money, as well, these commercial forests must have their wood transported as well, and then processed. B. [What you say the recycling process is: Recycling is a manufacturing process: Trucks have to come by, pick up the paper, treat it with chemicals, and repackage it] Indeed, the paper must be picked up, treated, and repackaged. Yet the same steps apply to new paper, the wood must be picked up, treated, and packaged. As well, there are the costs of water, fertilizer, chemicals to kill weeds, etc. In other words, recycling is the cheaper process. C. As I said earlier, poorer countries will pick the cheaper process, which is recycling. You say in your refutation that poor countries would want to develop industries, but you fail to recognize that recycling IS an industry. And it would be cheaper for the country to establish a recycling industry than a commercial tree growing one, especially since these countries are already very crowded, they need all the efficiency they can get. D. Also in your refutation, you say that commercial trees use up more carbon dioxide. I have already refuted this, but I shall again. When cut down, the capacity for these commercial trees to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen is reduced. That means that for a substantial part of the year they will have limited use in regulating carbon dioxide. As well, you claim that they will use up more carbon dioxide as they are growing, but you fail to recognize that old forests are constantly growing as well. E. (applies to D.) Recycling as I've said, will increase efficiency and preserve old, important forests. Most of these countries don't have room for giant tree farms, and recycling is a must, or we'll see the end of the massive forests which truly regulate carbon dioxide. Final: First of all, there's no reason to be rude. And let me say that it's been a good intelligent debate, better than what I see on most sites. Now onto my points, what I was saying previously was that you were not really calculating the costs of not recycling in other countries, particularly those without commercial tree farming. And as I've already explained, it really isn't that hard for countries to recycle (it's far less demanding than most regualtions placed), recycling IS cheaper than growing new trees. That's what will count in poor countries, the lower cost. Finally, I included the voting thing because I'm a policy debater, and it's kind of a habit (in my state there's some damn lazy judges, you've got to do their thinking for them). And honestly, I'm not following any sort of pious superstition, I'm looking at reality, I'm looking at the facts.

Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. = 1. The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 2. The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles 3. It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade./Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. 1. It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries. 2. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. 3. Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. 4. It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier. 1. There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth"s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century. 1. Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago. The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. 1. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 2. Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high. 3. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. 1. I already refuted this before. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth"s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 1. Already refuted this 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Most of global warming is completely natural. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA 1. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 2. Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 3. A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. 4. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. ["] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 4. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 5. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 3. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years"two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 3. Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 4. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we"ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions," - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia"s Center for Climate and Life 1. There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity. 2. Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapor which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can"t even pretend to control If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don"t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that"s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it"s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it"s not solar." - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration"s Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. Rest in comments section.

The climate is not "a changing".

I have clearly stated that the IPCC is a communist organisation to which my opponent has not offered any counter argument. Thus, We can only assume that my opponent agrees with this statement thus far. My opponent appears to think that whether the IPCC is a communist organisation or not is relevant to the debate. My opponent should note that when participating in a debate all the items in the first round should be addressed. It is up to the judges of the debate to decide if any part of the debate is irrelevant and it is not part of con's duty or responsibility to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. This is because the IPCC is an untrustworthy organisation which has political agendas which have nothing to do with climate. Thus, If they are using climate as a tool of political manipulation then, This should be addressed as important evidence. Just because my opponent can't see any structure in my first round doesn't imply that there is no structure. Of course, It would be of great advantage to my opponent if he could eliminate the IPCC from the debate because the IPCC has a very bad record of corruption and supplying misinformation about the My opponent appears to think that whether the IPCC is a communist organisation or not is relevant to the debate. My opponent should note that when participating in a debate all the items in the first round should be addressed. It is up to the judges of the debate to decide if any part of the debate is irrelevant and it is not part of con's duty or responsibility to decide what is relevant and what is not relevant. This is because the IPCC is an untrustworthy organisation which has political agendas which have nothing to do with climate. Thus, If they are using climate as a tool of political manipulation then, This should be addressed as important evidence. Just because my opponent can't see any structure in my first round doesn't imply that there is no structure. Of course, It would be of great advantage to my opponent if he could eliminate the IPCC from the debate because the IPCC has a very bad record of corruption and supplying misinformation about the climate. Thus, My opponent would very much rather not discuss the IPCC for these very reasons.