args

We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...

We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbon being released into the air. Unless ordinary people can be brought to change their behaviour we will never tackle climate change. So it is fair to use market methods that raise the price of energy to encourage us to change our behaviour. Ways can be found to make sure that no one suffers under this new system. For example, other taxes can be cut to make up for having to pay a carbon tax. And even if emissions were tackled by regulation instead, that would still have the effect of raising the cost of energy and fuel. Producers would pass the increased costs of regulation on to consumers, so we will have to pay more one way or another.

Climate change

It is important that in a debate only the issues and the arguments presented are addressed. Referring to the adversary's school of thought is not a valid way of countering his actual arguments. E. G. in our case I may be better or worse than the "average Co2 advocate" but I must be attacked on the merit on my own arguments not on the merits of the arguments of "advocates". By doing so Con commits the straw-man fallacy (makes it look like his adversary has a weaker argument and then tries to attack the weaker argument) [1] and insinuates that I am not doing my job and only trying to demonstrate that there is global warming. I restate my initial promise and the topic on which we agreed to debate (global warming a) exists – agreed, b) is caused in a significant degree by humans – still debating). I will stick to my promise and I will win this debate by proving what I have promised. The second straw-man fallacy committed by Con is that he suggests that I must prove that all or most of the warming can be explained by Co2 increase. Although this is a clever strategy I will not get sidetracked. As I have already stated in my previous 2 speeches, I assert that global warming is caused in a "significant" degree by Co2. I have also pointed out in my 2nd speech methods that can prove my theory false. I thank Con for taking up some of them. I thank Con for clarifying his position on temperature trends. I can now contradict him without contradicting myself. Con states that temperatures have increased since the last Ice Age and the last Little Ice Age. Con further states that the temperatures have been stable for the past decade. This last statement is false; you can verify it by looking out the window or by looking at satellite temperatures [2]. Con tries to induce guilt by association [3] between GW science and GW show. I will not try to defend Al Gore. Con, however, is trying to defend oil financed science. This is a losing strategy. As I have stated, we are debating arguments. What I have presented is clear bias from the science negating human induced GW. I will further argue that while IPCC tried to link hurricanes to GW and failed, the oil industry tried to silence independent US government financed research [4]. At the end of the day we have finance for human induced GW with no strings attached and finance for negation of GW WITH strings attached form "innocent" oil companies [5] [6] (quoted by Con). It is also weird for oil industry to finance science that negates GW, given the suspicion that this arises. If all that was important was the truth then there would be no need for oil industry to spend billions on financing this research as they would get the same result with no cost. There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and no meaning in the use o loaded words like bureaucrats. The works of the IPCC are in fact peer-reviewed [7]. I see that Con has restated his idea that scientific consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now consider this as an argument per se. The first consequence of Con's argument is that he indirectly admits that there is some sort of consensus. It is clear that by counting the number of scientists that agree or dissent with global warming neither Pro, neither Con can win the debate. But they can prove probable Pro or probable Con. Con pointed out that there were times when scientists got it wrong regarding homosexuality or Steady State Theory. While the premise is correct the inference is not. These examples are interesting because nobody counts the successes. It is dull when scientists get it right. You would expect the smart people to be right. Much like in plane crash fear the proportion of false theories created by scientists is exaggerated by the fact that wrong theories are surprising. Furthermore, Con states that what ultimately "won" was science. Winning is final and large consensus would be a good sign of winning. All the factual sane knowledge we have about the world is based upon scientific consensus (not even 100%, there are still scientists that think the Earth is flat). It may be proven wrong but it rarely does. Most of the time new theories incorporate old theories instead of contradicting them (Pythagoras generalized theorem -> Pythagoras theorem). If Con were right even elementary knowledge and communication would be impossible. While consensus doesn't mean 100% certainty, it means high probability. At this level, it would be safer to bet on the vast majority of scientists. I will further prove that their science is correct. Con quoted a part of the proof [8] I presented in my second speech pointing out that there was cooling at the end of the Carboniferous period. However, Con forgot to mention anything about the fact that in the beginning the temperatures were high and that the total amount of Co2 decreased during this period. Con also ignores other phenomena that contributed to cooling [9]. My argument about Co2 concentration and temperature stands. Also the Carboniferous is called that way because of the fact that coal was formed during that period [9]. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere then was transformed into wood and than into coal. We are now just putting it back into the atmosphere. There is actually more coal than limestone formed by skeletons of sea creatures. Con is also wrong that Co2 is gradually decreasing since the last 600 million years as I have shown in my first 2 speeches. In my first argument I presented the super-greenhouse effect on Venus. Con decided to attack this example in his 2nd speech. His firs calculation is correct: Venus should receive 2 times the sunlight earth receives. The rest of the demonstration is wrong. First Con is trying to demonstrate that there is no GW on Earth, but in his calculation he uses this conclusion as an hypothesis. He states that if temperatures on Earth are 288 k and Venus temperatures 737 the greenhouse effect on Venus would be 737-2*288 = 161 (Con supposes that the mean temperature on Earth has no Greenhouse Effect). In fact the temperature of Earth with no Greenhouse Effect would be 255 K [10]. Then the temperature on Venus would be 510 K with no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect would be in fact 227 K. Con now states that the Co2 effect is linear. In his first speech he stated: "a little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically". So the relationship is not in fact linear. If Venus has a 227 K temperature increase because of greenhouse effect then on Earth a small increase in the initial concentration of Co2 would lead to severe initial increases according to Con's model. For a more clear explanation of the process see graph [11]. In fact Venus is even hotter than Mercury [12] which is closer to the Sun. The Moon also proves the greenhouse theory and it is at the same distance as earth [13] and is on average colder. I have proven the bias of the science that negates GW, gave explanations about the Carboniferous and the Co2 output, have shown how Con's calculation actually proves my theory true. Te motion stands. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.sciencemag.org... [8] http://www.geocraft.com... [9] http://www.palaeos.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://img404.imageshack.us... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://www.teachersdomain.org...

Climate change

97% of scientist say it is a crisis.

Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.

I thank my opponent for accepting my resolution, and I must debate the PRO in this debate. I have no parameters to establish in the scope of the resolution of this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my contentions. Contention 1: Global warming and climate change are real threats that will be devastating to the human population if not controlled. The threat of global warming and climate change can be disastrous for the entire human community if allowed to accelerate and continue to spiral out of control. This is not construed to the human race, but also for the entire global environment and species therein. Sub-point 1a: Global warming is a real issue. Scientific evidence points to the poignant truth that global warming as a result from increases of Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including the following as NASA report: "Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute: The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response. Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands." Effects of such increases of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has resulted in ocean acidification, retreat of glaciers, shrinking ice sheets, etc. The following graph shows the trend in the increase of global warming. Sub-point 1b: The warming of the earth will lead to disastrous consequences. Global warming will lead to consequences disastrous for the maintenance of the human community, considering the following: There will be more intense hurricanes considering the pumping of warmer water into the atmosphere as well as more droughts and wildfires due to higher temperatures. The NRDC explains the occurrence of such consequences already occurring (in my cited evidence), including the increase of more intense hurricanes. Contention 2: The endeavor to stop global warming will lead to additional benefits for the human community outside of the scope of global warming. In addition to reducing the effects of global warming, the plight and actions in order to stop global warming will lead to additional good consequences: Sub-point 2a: The reduction of the use of fossil fuels brings many benefits. With the reduction of the demand of the use of fossil fuels, energy independence for countries would be much stronger considering they wouldn't have to submit to the rules of other nations or their interests, and the reduction of fossil fuels use would be a reduction in air pollution, which has serious effects: "Long-term health effects can include chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease, and even damage to the brain, nerves, liver, or kidneys. Continual exposure to air pollution affects the lungs of growing children and may aggravate or complicate medical conditions in the elderly. It is estimated that half a million people die prematurely every year in the United States as a result of smoking cigarettes." The drilling for fossil fuels can also be reduced with the decreased demand, meaning that these environmental impacts can also be reduced: "Concerns over new drilling amount to more than just a worry about spills. To find potential oil reserves, researchers send seismic waves into the ground. The waves bounce back to reveal the buried topography and can hint at a possible reserve. But seismic noise disorientates whales and leads to mass beachings, said Richard Charter, a government relations consultant for the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund." This is not including the oil spills that may result. Sub-point 2b: Global warming is detrimental to the economy and ridding of it can aid it. Podesta explains: "In the United States, the potential economic impacts on regional economic development are many. Droughts and loss of soil moisture from a warming climate are predicted to cause a lowering of water tables, with potentially devastating economic impacts to agricultural communities throughout the Great Plains. Direct impacts from global warming on regional economies will also include a serious blow to the timber industry from increased prevalence of pests like the southern pine beetle, slower growth rates for trees, and more frequent wildfires. This would mean a decrease in revenue for producers of $1 billion to $2 billion per year. For resource-dependent states and industries, whether you are calculating expected agricultural yields or changes in hydroelectric energy production from melting snow pack, global warming has real consequences for businesses and investors.Additionally, states face substantial policy risk from the increasing regulation of carbon, particularly where dominant industries are tied to energy generation and use. Coal producing states and those with larger shares of coal-based electricity, for example, have a strong interest in ensuring a rapid shift to technologies capable of capturing and storing carbon, to ensure a place for coal in a carbon-constrained world. Across our industrial heartland, the regional economy will depend on the ability of manufacturing firms to successfully anticipate global market demands and regulatory mandates for automobiles that use less gas, or run on entirely new forms of energy. Companies that fail to respond to this changing policy landscape will face increasing liability for climate impacts, while those that embrace new technology can capture new and vibrant markets." "Climate Change: Evidence." Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://climate.nasa.gov...;. "Global Warming." Elmhurst College. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.elmhurst.edu...;. "Consequences of Global Warming - Global Warming Effects | NRDC." Natural Resources Defense Council – The Earth's Best Defense. NRDC. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nrdc.org...;. Podesta, John. "Global Warming's Toll on the Economy." Center for American Progress. Center for American Progress. Web. 26 Apr. 2012. <http://www.americanprogress.org...

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

Climate change is a real and threatening danger. Uptake in sever weather, natural disasters, stagnant food production, dwindling water resources, melting polar caps and glaciers, and extinction of animals, insects, coral that depend on specific temperatures to survive. It is a danger that has been scientifically linked to excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays from the sun that should be reflected back into space and the heat and carbon from our own industrial complexes trapped under the layer they created.. Critics say that the Earth has experience climate change before during times that modern humans were not even alive and therefor human activity can not be causing climate change, even if it exists. But look at what CAUSES climate change. Excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays. In the past this was created by volcanic activity, run away continent wide wildfires, and a massive meter impact throwing millions of tons of dust, dirts, smoke/carbon, and greenhouses gases into the air, blocking out the sun to where very little light reach the Earths surface to heat it and causing an ice age. Critics say that if we ARE having climate change why are we not getting colder then ? Because once those events happened, they ended. Once all the trees were burned down, there was nothing to burn, once the volcano released all its pressure and stopped erupting, no more heat and carbon/greenhouse gases that trap heat were being produced. There was only one big meteor, one big explosion that created a layer of carbon and greenhouse gases that enveloped the whole world.. Imagine that layer is a house. All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors locked shut, and the heater is set at 90degrees and the stove is on medium heat, going for hours on end. There maybe a few leaks here and there but all in all the house soon becomes unbearably hot and stuffy. You turn off the stove and heater so it won't get any hotter and eventually the house cools because of the leaks. May take a very long time but it happens. Now imagine instead of turning off the heater and stove, you leave them as they are or ,being generous, turn them down a bit BUT not a lot and they are still going strong for hours and hours. Imagine you add a roommate that has their own heater and stove going as well, and then another, and then another, so on and so forth. The house becomes unbearably hot even faster with each new addition. Even if all of you turned down the heaters and stoves down to the BARE MINIMUM NEEDED TO SURVIVE, with all of the trapped heat from before, the added people adding their own heat/emissions on top of that, the heat will not dissipate before you all die of heat stroke, starvation cause no food plants can grow in such hot and water parched conditions, or oxygen deprivation cause their are no plants to turn the heat and exhale ( carbon emissions) into breathable air. Humans are highly adaptable and we could probably hold out for a few generations after the collapse of the earths ecosystem but eventually we to would have to adapt or perish. So why wait till a bottom of the barrel crisis before enforcing laws and society norms that control our population rise ALONG with strategies to curb and reduce our resource guzzling ways ? It has been scientifically tested and projected by many scientists that Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. Right now we are a bit above 7 billion and grow by about a 200,000 a year. One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed." According to population biologist Joel Cohen of Columbia University, other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity are the nitrogen cycle, available quantities of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and many other systems work together, all interwoven to create and sustain life on Earth. Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote. The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually UNDER OPTIMUM SUSTAINED CLIMATE AND WEATHER, something that is slowly becoming rare around the world. But pushing that point aside, thats enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion omnivores under US standards of consumption, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned if EVERYONE became vegetarians. But because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, so the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion and be more around 8 or 9 billion. OH wait .... We are already almost there ! and the world population is expected to hit 8 billion by 2024. Our bulging population not only threatens us but every living thing on planet Earth. Population control methods MUST be part of ALL climate change, sustainable resource, and green funding policies. A grain of sand my seem tiny but added together they become a huge desert that can swallow us whole.