• CON

    Education: The act or process of imparting or acquiring...

    Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change

    I thank my opponent for this opportunity. I will be arguing against the statement that "Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global climate change." I will begin by defining my terms and clarifying my argument: Poverty: The state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. Education: The act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. Hunger :A compelling need or desire for food. Greater: Unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions. Issue: A point in question or a matter that is in dispute, as between contending parties in an action at law. Climate change: A long-term change in the earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature. All definitions were directly quoted from Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com... The context of all key terms and words should be understood otherwise I will further elaborate. When the instigator refers to the issue of education I am assuming that they are talking about the lack of free education in specific countries. Also, I assume that hunger is an Issue that is attached to poverty as a result. With that being said, I understand that lack of education and hunger are typically effects that are caused by poverty. I am arguing against this claim because I do not believe that it is true. I do believe that poverty is a serious issue. I do believe that every country should allow free education through the 12 grade. I also believe that hunger and death from malnutrition are Important issues. But, I argue that none of these three issues are as important as Climate change. Here's why: Poverty, and the issues surrounding it such as hunger and education effect a select few. Climate change effects every single person living on Earth and every single person who ever will live on Earth. That is my argument, I look forward to this debate.

  • PRO

    They are not imposing air pollution standards for fear of...

    Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

    Thanks to Con for accepting this debate. It was an opportunity to raise some interesting points. Arguments Con forfeited the last round leaving all my arguments unanswered. New arguments cannot be introduced in Con's final round, so he should be content with summarizing. I raised the issue early as to why trillions of dollars should be spent on policies that no one claims will have a significant effect on climate. Con's reply was that we should spend lesser trillions on policies that would have even less of an effect, not even measurable. Also unanswered was the detrimental effect on the US of refusing to develop the $300 trillion in fossil fuel resources when we need the revenue desperately. Con argues that China looks to the US to set an example. Have they improved their human rights record in the light of the US's example? They are not imposing air pollution standards for fear of economic loss, that also despite the US's example of strict pollution controls. It is not remotely plausible that China, or anyone else in the world, is going to abandon economic development in favor of CO2 crisis theory. Con could not cite a single reference to anyone who believes that would actually work. Con argues that the world scientific community says that climate change is real and imminent danger. Skeptics agree it is real, so that's not an issue. As to imminent danger, scientific truth is not determined by consensus, and if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed. The convincing evidence is that models claimed to describe climate clearly do not work. If it is an imminent danger, that is not a good reason to adopt policies that are extremely expensive and not even claimed to be effective. Consider, for example, the imminent danger posed by nuclear proliferation. How about covering the land area of the earth with Geiger counters every quarter mile, with automatic reporting of anomalous radiation. That would cost trillions of dollars and would be ineffective, in part because the radiation is easily shielded. Nonetheless, everyone would agree that nuclear proliferation is an imminent danger. That does not recommend expensive and useless policies. I suspect readers can come up with many examples of problems that have expensive yet ineffective solutions. We should pursue sensible policies of adapting to climate change and researching cost-effective climate engineering methods. Sources Pro provided tow references to the New Scientist, a non-refereed popular magazine. In one, the statement of journalist that the recent temperature rise is unprecedented was not sourced, and it contradicted by scientific literature referenced by the Environmental protection agency. The other article makes claims about crop growth with enhanced CO2. If one keeps clicking through, one scientific article is referenced, but it is contradicted by the literally hundreds that I referenced. One would think NASA would be a reliable source, but under Hansen, a CO2 fanatic, they have lost all credibility. Hansen says oceans will rise by 25 meters while the pro-CO2-crisis IPCC says nine inches. Under Hansen, the NASA global temperature data is continually revised upwards, contrary to the other three reliable sources. =============== The resolution is affirmed.

  • PRO

    The orders awaiting his signature target federal...

    Biden aims for most ambitious US effort on climate change

    In the most ambitious U.S. effort to stave off the worst effects of climate change, President Joe Biden is aiming to cut oil, gas and coal emissions and double energy production from offshore wind turbines through executive orders Wednesday. The orders awaiting his signature target federal subsidies for oil and other fossil fuels and halt new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. They also intend to conserve 30 percent of the country’s lands and ocean waters in the next 10 years and move to an all-electric federal...

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/biden-signs-executive-order-climate-change-reform
  • PRO

    President Barack Obama glossed over some inconvenient...

    Fact Check: Obama Spins Statistics in U.N. Speech on Climate Change

    President Barack Obama glossed over some inconvenient truths Tuesday in his climate-change speech to the United Nations. For one, as the U.S. cleans up emissions at home, it’s sending dirty fuel abroad to pollute the same sky. As well, the U.S. is not cleaning up quite as aggressively as Obama implied in his remarks. Obama was among scores of world leaders at the gathering, which followed by days a mass demonstration in New York City in support of action to combat global warming. Among those who marched: Al Gore, whose...

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/obama-talks-climate-change-summit
  • PRO

    Now lets get started. ... Got that so far.

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

    Alright you asked for it. Now lets get started. I am going to make this as easy as possible for you. I am going to lay everything out in a clear-cut manner. I will tell you what is fact and what is speculation. First off we must address Now lets get started. I am going to make this as easy as possible for you. I am going to lay everything out in a clear-cut manner. I will tell you what is fact and what is speculation. First off we must address climate. Climate definition roughly means the physical properties of the troposphere (thats a layer in the atmosphere) of an area based on analysis of its weather records over a long period of time. The two main factors that determine the climate is temperature and amount and distribution. Got that so far. Now one of the main culprits of Global Climate change is the Greenhouse Gases lets get a definition. Greenhouse Gases- Gases in the lower atmosphere that cause the Greenhouse affect. These include carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide. Now lets get a definition of Greenhouse effect Greenhouse Effect- A natural effect that releases heat in the atmosphere near the earth's surface. Greenhouse Gases (those stated above) absorb some of the heat that is radiated by the earth's surface. This heat that is absorbed is then re-radiated out to heat the atmosphere. If natural causes do not keep greenhouse gases under control the temperature will rise. There now that we have these facts (yes these above are facts and are impossible to prove otherwise, chemically its impossible) Now we must look at what is going on today. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com... Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature. However remember that temperatures will only rise if the rate of replenishment is greater than that of the carbon emissions (in other words how much plant life converts into oxygen) Lets look at that Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate http://news.mongabay.com... The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen. Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insolation power.http://www.terranature.org... Now lets combine all those factors in one. We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature. By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature. Now what to do about it becomes the real problem. Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today. Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back. Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates). Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation. Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable.

  • CON

    You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. ... In the...

    The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

    You can't just "invest" in Wind and Solar. You have to choose specific technologies and specific firms that make those technologies to invest in, and we all know how the government picks its investments. https://en.wikipedia.org... The connected will get the money, rather than who has the best idea. In the private sector, if your company can make more money, you'll find investors. So I say stop subsidizing oil, let a few more years go by, alternative energy will already be cheaper without Uncle Sam spending any of his money, and climate change will effectively resolve itself.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-US-needs-to-do-much-more-to-combat-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    The ozone hole is just an area of the upper atmosphere...

    Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

    I hope you are joking, "I have seen many a great things, inspirational things, miracles even, BUT never have I seen evidence of an Ozone layer." The ozone layer is not a literal sheet/dome of ozone covering the entire planet it is just huge quantities of Ozone (O3) in the upper atmosphere. The ozone holes are more of areas with less ozone, much less, so much less in fact that it does seem to be a whole in the ozone protection from UV and ionizing rays! We are able to get a hole as ozone is near the top of the atmosphere, not much is above it, and of course sinks down into that hole, therefore you are right it's not a vacume in the atmosphere, its a hole, a void without ozone. Ozone is what protects the planet for a most part from harmful rays such as UV and ionising rays (Gamma and x-rays)! With the hole missing, half of the green house effect is put into place. These rays aren't just cancerous and dangerous in other ways to use, but they also heat up the surface of the planet, which normally if fine, NORMALLY when heat enters it just leaves, but green house gasses such as methane and carbon dioxide (which in small amounts are fine and needed, but we are pumping much more) block this extra heat/energy from the Sun from escaping back out into space! The ozone layer again as you seemed to not understand, is a layer of ozone (not only ozone) in the upper atmosphere, this ozone is in addition to what makes up the atmosphere, and this ozone usually stays in the upper atmosphere (on the rare occasian or it drops into the lower atmosphere or is created here, he get sick has it is poisonous to breath) along with the other ingredients in our atmosphere, helium, carbon dioxide, air, nitrogen..... The ozone hole is just an area of the upper atmosphere lacking ozone, which again is what protects the planet from much of the electromagnetic spectrum (light, including gamma and x-rays, UV and Infrared rays, Microwave and Radio waves). You said you have never "seen" this part of climate change, of course you don't do you see trees taking in CO2 and putting out Oxygen, NO, so it "must" not be true. The almighty, non-scientist nobody doesn't beleive it to be true, we must just take his word for it! The ozone hole is over the southern pole, so if you were in Antarctica right now you would likely feel the rays, as in you would get sun burns and a tan (yes even in the arctic as long as there is sun and rays, you would also likely get skin cancer after a couple years of exposure, why don't you test your theory out that it doesn't exist, maybe you can prove skin cancer to be a myth made by those evil athiests too). You asked how do we know that the climate is changing at a un-natural rate, good question, this held us back from acting on climate change for a long while, until we figured out the answer. We know that the planet's temerature has changed over thousands and millions of years, ice ages are proof of this (we know those happened due to glacier fossils which cover the earth meaning that the temp would of had to be much lower), and there have been times in history where we beleive it was so hot that the poles melted completely, but all of these events happened over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years (ice ages being the exeption, they happened over a number of thousands of years). We know that the Earth's temperature hasn't been changing in the past due to the effects that climate change has on weather, el nino (a storm caused by disrutption of wind currents, caused by climate change) has only came to exist in the last 20 years and is definetly caused by climate change. You do not understand that this is a debate on climate change and not evoultion. Also you talked about extintion, extintion does not prove evolution false, animals die when things like you said happen, but when effects take place over long periods of time such as a forest eroding into a savanna or desert, the best of the species living there will survive and pass on their traits over and over again the best wills survive passing on the best traits to survive their changing habitat, if they don't change fast enough they die, like you said, but often they aren't faced with such imiediet threats! An example of evolution is tictalic, the ancestor of all land vertebrates. The tictalic species evolved slowly overtime, fins that were able to push themselves up out of the water, this happened as the members of the species with the strongest fins would pass on there genes and the ones with weaker fins would die out. These fins over thousands of years would get so strong they could act as primitive arms that drag tictalic onto land to escape predators. The air bladder of the fish evolved to act as a single lung and this way, over time through many mutations that helped the species survive, they evolved legs, then they got bigger, spread out across the planet, and the species we have today evolved. WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WITH YOU DONT PUT SO MUCH FAITH IN YOUR LORD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN YET THE ONLY PROOF THERE IS FOR A GOD IS THAT SOME THINGS CANT BE EXPLAINED WITH OUR CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, DONT EXPECT SOMEONE TO SAVE THE PLANET (GOD) ONCE YOU SCREW IT UP BY EXPECTING IT TO BE SAVED, WITH THE IDEA THAT SPECIES WILL CARE FOR THEMSELVES, OUR ENTIRE PLANETS ECOSYSTEM WILL COLAPSE AND GOD WONT BE THERE TO SAVE IT, IF HE IS REAL HE WOULD NOT HELP SOMEONE WHO ISNT HELPING THEMSELVES HE IS NOT YOUR MOTHER!

  • CON

    Note that in either of these years the correlation,...

    Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

    Correlations As we can see, my opponent is playing a semantics game in attempt to salvage his defeated case. When looking at the facts, though, we see his semantic attempt is laughable. For example, in debate the resolution is like the constitution, a law of the land, correct? Yes. The wording in the resolution reads “driven”. But the definition is propelled by something [1]. Based on the definition it is extremely clear that the resolution means CO2 is the main cause, based on that fact my opponent already loses the debate. Now my opponent’s quote of myself also proves my point, as cause is defined as to make something happen [2]. The syntax of this also shows cause is usually defined as the “main” thing. For example, CO2 may be a factor, but is not the cause. And it is likely human CO2 can have the effect as it is given by alarmists. And even earlier in the round it is made blatantly clear that Pro would argue that CO2 would cause the majority of warming. Based on the resolution and my position as ‘con’, it means I would be against the resolution. The definitions of CO2 prove: “In other words, it [Co2] is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.” As con, it is obvious I am against this hypothesis furthering the claim that the debate is about the majority of warming. My opponents semantically driven claim fails. And as he never even touched my facts, I extend the argument. In hopes my opponent returns to the debate, and stops accusations of wrongdoings, which I apologize for if he truly thinks they exist, I will build upon the point I made earlier: there is no significant correlation between temperature and co2; especially within the last decade. My opponent never counters the claim in which CO2 has not a significant enough correlation to be the main factor in warming; as for it to be major the correlation should be in the range the PDO is currently in. In the majority of the time, the CO2 correlation was lacking, however the correlation really only was strong between 1980 – 90, and 1925 – 30. Note that in either of these years the correlation, overall, is extremely weak. The paper concludes, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.”[3] Other then the fact this clearly demonstrates natural factors are a more likely candidate to cause warming let me emphasis the last decade point. If the theory was correct, unstoppable global warming and high correlations would exist that would spiral out of control and we would melt! But as usual alarmist science fails. For something to be correct, it must have the ability to predict phenomena. For example, the periodic table of the elements has predicted what many of the missing elements are/where, and many have been found exactly as predicted. Co2 theory suggests warming should be extremely high… but it was zero. With a correlation of almost zero in the last decade, it essentially proves that Co2 is not a major factor and the science in which it was built is small, and non-existent [3]. No correlation no bang, no bang pro loses. He says many times my source says differently, without direct quotations from it. I have cited it many times, and took stuff out of its conclusions. Let me repeat, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.” You where saying about lying? And what evidence? A graph which I disproved and showed its correlations extremely weak, and that the PDO correlation is impeccable? As we can see, my opponent has offered no evidence other then a graph, which has weak correlation. And the graph is in my source… and the writer shows weak correlation… I prefer not to ask readers to read links, but to prove I am not lying read the summary of the paper here: http://wattsupwiththat.com... Other factors My opponent goes on a rampage. He doesn’t care. See paragraph 1-3 under correlations. He needs to prove these natural factors do not cause the majority of global warming, and that CO2 is a likely candidate. But as he cannot do this he goes into ad homeneim attacks which I have been attempting to avoid in this debate. But the funny thing is a 14 year old with newly found testosterone is keeping his cool more then a fully-grown man… So instead of rebutting this he just dismisses it based on his former semantics. These where rebutted and the point is extended. So instead of attacking my opponent, I will build upon the case already created. Lets first look at solar, a common sense look as it is the only light bulb in the oven. Many studies have come out, with little media attention no less, that make strong cases for solar forgings in climate. Sunspot number is an accepted proxy for measuring the intensity of the suns wrath. NIPCC 2011 As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2 [4]. PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [4]. Conclusions: My opponent threw all his eggs in two baskets: ad homeneim and semantics. Neither where justified, and he has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, which was given to him in round one. This is an obvious victory for con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [4] S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-driven-by-human-CO2-emissions/1/
  • PRO

    President Barack Obama is making an Earth Day visit to...

    Obama Spends Earth Day In The Everglades, Taunting Republicans On Climate Change

    President Barack Obama is making an Earth Day visit to Florida's Everglades on Wednesday, where he'll talk about environmental issues. It's of course a huge coincidence that the visit is in the backyard of two Republican presidential hopefuls who have been squishy on the subject of climate change. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on a call ahead of the trip that Obama "will use the occasion of Earth Day to highlight his commitment to fighting to protect public health and to fighting the carbon pollution that contributes...

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/obama-celebrates-earth-day
  • PRO

    1] The corporate funding effect is potent. ... V. Sources...

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

    Outline I. Intro II. Man made Co2 Causes warming III. Humans > money IV. Conclusion V. Sources I. Intro Harrytruman thank you for accepting the debate. It takes courage to challenge the status quo. First, lets examine why you most likely think climate change is fake. You have probably been fooled by professional deceivers. [0] People who can convince you that cigarettes are safe. Greenpeace has shown that the Koch brothers are secretly funding these deceivers. [1] The corporate funding effect is potent. [2][3] Corporations have been known to fund research which ends up producing results in favor of the corporation. II. Man made Co2 Causes warming Now, I will prove that Anthropic climate change is real. First the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real. [4] The main argument that deniers use is reverse causality between Co2 and temperature. First, let's look at the ridiculousness of this claim, that scientists some how overlooked the possibility of reverse causality. Second, I will prove that Co2 causes temperature to rise. [5] We know this due to Milankovitch cycles. The Earth tilts raising temperatures, which causes the oceans to release Co2. The Co2 then warms the Earth further. Also, we know this due to the ocean's acidity. The acidity of the ocean is increasing, showing more Co2 is going into the ocean than out. [6] III. Humans > money I have proven that man made climate change is real. Now to your claim that we would suffer economic loss. First, you never estimated how much we would lose nor linked to any outside sources. Second, how does economic loss compare to losing the possibility of losing the entire human race? Human race > money. Bill Nye shows that terrorists groups are using water shorages caused by climate change to recruit. The pentagon views climate change as a threat. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. [7][8][9] IV. Conclusion We need more information, to get this information we need to conduct an experiment. The best way to conduct this experiment is to dramatically lower Co2 levels. Thanks for debating. V. Sources 0. https://thinkprogress.org... 1. http://www.greenpeace.org... 2. http://nutritionfacts.org... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://iopscience.iop.org... 5. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 6. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 8. http://www.nytimes.com... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...