• PRO

    While the entire world needs to reduce their carbon...

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

    Of all contemporary political issues, there is one clear issue that stands out from all of the rest. It stands out because, unlike all other issues, it affects every single person in the world, and every single person who ever will live on this planet. Climate change is a huge problem which could potentially kill us if we don't do something to stop it [1]. Scientists are certain that climate change, at least very significantly, caused by humans [2]. As I always say when I debate religion, you can believe whatever you want, but it's ridiculous to say that the scientific consensus is wrong when you have little to no evidence. Now, since we know that global warming is caused by humans, we will clearly need to change as a society. If you look at the graph of countries in source [3], you will see that the US and China are really close in terms of emissions, but are clearly ahead of other countries. However, China has 4.3 times as many people as the US. So, the average American will emit about 4 times as much carbon as the average Chinese person. That is disgusting. While the entire world needs to reduce their carbon emissions, the US needs to change the most. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to get 3 million people to change the way they live their lives. That is why the government needs to do something. Now, even though the debate is whether or not the government should do something, it wouldn't do the debate any justice to neglect to talk about what the government could do. First of all, the government could instill a major tax on paper and plastic shopping bags. Paper bags kill countless trees and require huge amounts of energy to produce. Plastic bags obviously are made from oil and they don't biodegrade, so they get in our waterways and do bad things, as you've no doubt seen. Both paper and plastic bags are bad [4]. There is already a movement among environmentally conscious people in which they shop using reusable canvas bags. Those are much more sustainable for the environment, and if paper and plastic bags weren't free anymore, people would be much more inclined to bring their own, or at the very least reuse their old bags. Also, the government could tax big businesses which do not take initiative in protecting the environment. This is a straightforward and easy way to force businesses to care. Lastly (or at least the last one I will mention in this argument), the government could do simple things, such as not allowing offshore drilling. Yes, offshore drilling will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But our dependence on foreign oil would also be reduced if we simply educed our dependence on oil. It is absolutely ridiculous how much oil we use in the US. We are only home to about 4.5% of the world's population, yet we consume almost a quarter of the oil [5]. That is absolutely ridiculous. We may slam China for being inconsiderate of the environment, so much so that we forget that we are as bad as they are, or way worse per capita. The US is absolutely horrible in terms of environmental protection, and 3 million people won't change spontaneously, at least, not before it's too late. That is why we need the government to get involved now. We don't want it to be too late. I am looking forward to your response! 1. No, I am not just playing in to media hype. Here is an excellent website spelling out exactly how it will kill us, brought to you by our very own EPA: http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.epa.gov... "Scientists know with virtual certainty that:..." 3. http://www.epa.gov... 4. http://www.reusablebags.com... 5. http://www.nationmaster.com...

  • PRO

    The earth's climate has always shifted dramatically...

    Irreversible climate change makes geoengineering unavoidable.

    It is impossible for humans to avoid geoengineering in the future. The earth's climate has always shifted dramatically throughout its history. The Earth will, for instance, enter another ice age fairly soon. Should we, then, just allow this to happen? No, particularly if it means sacrificing millions of human lives and civilization as we know it. We should make the world work for us, not allow it to obliterate us. And, if we assume geoengineering is enevitable, then there is no moral boundary to doing it now, when global warming poses the threat that does to human civilization.

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Geoengineering%2C_solar_shading
  • CON

    The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    First off, we need to define "Climate Change". We do this because it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of "Climate Change". For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools. It has been happening since the beginning of the Earth, and Scientists are currently studying it via the geological record in both Ice Cores and in Earth Coring samples. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the "scientific theory" that HUMANS are causing the Climate to Change. Usually blamed on the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "Global Warming" as opposed to "Global Cooling" are way too ambiguous of phrases for this discussion and should not be used. I will break this up into 3 separate segments because I see it has 3 features, they are related, but they all play their part : Segment One: Climate Change: Climate Change, as opposed to Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a natural process, and includes both increases and decreases in temperature. According to the Geologic Record, from what we know from the Ice Cores and Sediment Cores, we are currently in a cool period. The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c. The current, short term, average temperature is only about 14c. The maximum estimated temperatures are up around 25c and the Minimum around 10c. The simple conclusion from just those basic facts is we are generally cooler than what is "normal" for our planet. Therefore what we consider "warming" is simply just a "return to normal". Any "hype" about "the end of the world" doesn't even begin to be relevant until we start to clime over 18c, because the Earth was still active and very much alive with temperatures as high as 25c. The Earth also has its own ideas when it comes to warming and CO2. For much of the Earth's history, CO2 level have been much higher (a mean of about 3500 ppm) than they are now, with a high of about 7000 ppm and a low of about 180 ppm. Interestingly, the CDC says the "warning" level for CO2 is 5000 ppm. For Humans, CO2 becomes dangerous (asphyxiation) at 30,000 - 100,000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not clear and we have scientists arguing if increases in CO2 precede warming periods, or if the increase is caused by the warming period. In either case, one thing is clear, even at 7000 ppm, both humans and plants would survive. It is estimated that the Optimal concentration for CO2 for plant growth is between 1500 and 2500 ppm, well below the CDC's limits. The net effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is the increase of biomass (green plant-life) on the planet. More biomass equals more O2. The current measurement of CO2 is about 380 ppm. The current levels of CO2 are about on par with what existed before the 1820s. The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally high, nor are they odd, out of the ordinary, or even dangerous in any way. The opposite is true, however, that the CO2 levels appear to be normalizing and benefiting biomass which is a benefit, not a detriment. We have now established a baseline. The average Temperatures are up around 18c, and the CO2 level around 3500 ppm. This would appear to be "normal" for the Earth, even if it doesn't seem "normal" from our current point of view. Now, I would like to look at some "evidences" of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and real Climate Change: 1) Warming has caused more and more severe hurricanes. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. http://news.heartland.org... 2) Warming has caused more and more severe wildfires. Fact is, the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned have remained consistent for at least the past 13 years. I have included the graph in the comments section, and this is where I got the information: http://www.nifc.gov... 3) Arctic ice is melting. There was a 29% increase in arctic ice this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4) Antarctic ice is melting. Antarctic ice is also increasing, hitting a 35 year high this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5) Polar bears are dying off. Actually, their population is increasing. Based on some estimates, by 4200 bears since 2001. http://www.npr.org... 6) Human generated CO2 has caused an increase in global temperatures. Temperatures have stayed constant over the last 17 years. http://www.forbes.com... 7) Sea Level is increasing rapidly. Over the past 150 years, there has been no drastic, alarming, or abnormal increase in sea level. One site, SkepticalScience, shows a graph from 1880 to now. Sea Levels are about the same now as they were then. It appears, from the graph, that it is cyclical. The following is from an expert in the field: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org... The only conclusion, therefore, is Climate Change is a natural process and does not appear to be abnormally affected by people. Segment Two: Politics: The Politics of Climate Change, like anything in politics, is all about money. First I would like to mention a warning signs of a "political agenda", like "science by consensus". One of the first things we heard from the IPCC and other AGW activists is how "scientists are in consensus" and "all the evidence suggests". Any science minded person knows this isn't true in ANY scientific field. For every scientist FOR something, there is one AGAINST it, and another one who has his own theory. For instance, we have "the big bangers" and the "black holers" when it comes to the origin of our universe... there are those in the scientific community who question gravity... and in climate science, there are all kinds of voices, some for and yes, some against. SCIENCE is not something done by CONSENSUS, but by application of the Scientific Theory. Another warning sign is when any bit of science becomes a political talking point. Politicians are notorious for conflating issues; in the '70s is was "Global Cooling" and today "Global Warming". Neither of which are true; its all just Climate Change. Further evidence of a "political agenda" when it comes to Science is developing and passing legislation to try to alter nature. Just because you pass a law that forbids the sun from rising, doesn't mean the sun won't rise. Second, I must point out "bad science", to go along with the "political agenda": Mistakes: http://www.newscientist.com... (8 other sources in comments) Manipulations: http://www.guardian.co.uk... Lies: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.brutallyhonest.org... Third, after seeing the political agenda, we must ask "who is making money on this?" When Al Gore came up with the idea of "trading carbon credits", financial experts had their hair set on fire. They recognized the beginnings of a ponzi scheme. Carbon trading is a Billion (if not Trillion) dollar scheme. Private individuals and Governments stand to make a fortune. http://www.newsbusters.org... http://www.marketwired.com... Luckily, some are realizing the fraud: http://www.cfact.org... Segment Three: Alternative Theories: Another warning sign is the complete lack of alternate theories to either compliment or detract from the supposed consensus, especially from those sources that HAVE both points of view, like NASA. Below are several links discussing another plausible cause of "Climate Change"; Solar activity: http://www.americanthinker.com... (12 other sources in comments) As you can see, it isn't something to ignore, and it calls into question the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. I have also included some more information from a variety of sources that talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem: http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://www.co2science.org... http://www.nature.com... http://blogs.nature.com... We should also understand that "weather" and "climate" are different things. Weather, for instance, can be influenced by people: http://www.agu.org... http://www.nature.com... http://www.nature.com... You asked for some scientists that don't support AGW, well, here is a partial list of 31,000: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com... NONE of this is to say that I don't believe we should be responsible stewards of our Earthly home. I believe in Recycling, conservation, etc. I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon. NOTE: due to the 10,000 character limit, I have placed many of my links to sources in the comments section.

  • PRO

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developed countries have the greatest capacity to combat climate change.

  • CON

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developing nations are just as capable as developed nations of taking on the burden of combating climate change

  • PRO

    Developed countries must combat climate change while...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns

  • PRO

    Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to...

    Scott Brown, Cory Gardner Shift Stance On Climate Change In First Senate Debates

    Republican Senate candidates Scott Brown and Cory Gardner on Monday embraced the notion that climate change is caused in part by human activity, despite previously expressing skepticism that man-made climate change is real. Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to unseat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, while Gardner, a congressman from Colorado, is looking to defeat Sen. Mark Udall in that state. Both Senate races, regarded as unexpectedly competitive for Democrats, had debates on Monday -- the first for New Hampshire candidates, the second for Colorado. In both,...

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/will-gop-take-over-senate
  • PRO

    So if you have the links to those that would be great to...

    Climate Change is a real issue

    I debated against you about a month ago. So far you failed to provide such proof other than claiming it. You have no link to back your proof up. So if you have the links to those that would be great to see and help you state your claim and me to come up with better counterarguments. The average temperature has continued to rise by a degree ever since factory jobs became popular in the industrial revolution. During these times, We used fossil fuels to help the factory running. Trees, Which are to take in carbon dioxide aka CO2, And produce oxygen which we need to breathe and survive. Unfortunately, As the population has grown bigger and bigger, Especially during the baby boom area we have cut down more trees to build buildings such as homes and office spaces to keep up with the population. As we keep cutting down more trees and building more factories, Having more gas-powered vehicles on the road, It severely increases how much Co2 in stuck air. Enginers, Scientist, Business Leaders have all joined forces to address the issues. While we have not found a way to stop it completely. This is the one and the only planet we have. However, For centuries we have to practice the same harmful effects on the environment. Treating all life on Earth. While a 1-degree difference in the average temperature may not seem as bad, It can have destsating effects that include water storages that have started happening. It important that we take action now Sources: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=gBLQUplzZZo&feature=emb_rel_pause The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide By Alan Buis, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4Uy9b87cYRs&feature=emb_logo Global Temperature Unfortunately, As the population has grown bigger and bigger, Especially during the baby boom area we have cut down more trees to build buildings such as homes and office spaces to keep up with the population. As we keep cutting down more trees and building more factories, Having more gas-powered vehicles on the road, It severely increases how much Co2 in stuck air. Enginers, Scientist, Business Leaders have all joined forces to address the issues. While we have not found a way to stop it completely. This is the one and the only planet we have. However, For centuries we have to practice the same harmful effects on the environment. Treating all life on Earth. While a 1-degree difference in the average temperature may not seem as bad, It can have destsating effects that include water storages that have started happening. It important that we take action now Sources: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=gBLQUplzZZo&feature=emb_rel_pause The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide By Alan Buis, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=4Uy9b87cYRs&feature=emb_logo Global Temperature Change Bloomberg Green https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=bpa0aFY--pE&feature=emb_rel_pause https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=A5ir8AjmRWQ&feature=emb_rel_pause

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/1/
  • CON

    And they nver will be. ... The interrelationship between...

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

    Here is a link to a litany of links that talk about Co2 and the parts per million and the sensitivity of the earths climate to it. All of them put it in to context which your links do not do. And also state that people who use these figures to create a sense of urgency that catastrophic doom is eminent are completely wrong. These are all peer reviewed sources. "All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the Internet. You just need to look." The burden of proof is on you my responsibility is to prove what you say is flawed or incorrect based on the sources you provide to make your case. "Plus the Internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read." The Internet is a global warming alarmist worst nightmare. No where in the entire world are these peer reviewed reports that dispute your claims reported in any news media outlet. And they nver will be. There is obviously a concerted effort to silence these reports because it would make the environmental agenda look like a complete fraud. It is a fraud. Next your litany of books to read. Ummmmm As no one will know what they are about let alone where the research to write these books came from and the context they are written in. This is not an argument nor a source it is a list of books that no one who reads this debate can use as information to make an educated vote. None the less I took the time to look for reviews of each book because I can't possible locate and read each book in 3 days and the fact that you would insinuate that I read all of these books and respond to each one of them in this debate is beyond preposterous. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker http://www.jennifermarohasy.com... G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Both of those reviewers, however, expressed some reservations. Luke said that the book's author, G. Tyler Miller, Jr., continually promoted his own environmental philosophy, even though Environmental Science was supposed to be a textbook rather than a manifesto. Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories This is a critical evaluation of Fritjof Capra's systems theory in his book The Web of Life (Anchor Books, 1996). His theory states that properties of the whole cannot be found on the level of its components or parts. The interrelationship between parts creates new properties, so called emergent properties, that are only intrinsic to the system as a whole and not to any of its parts. Uhhh what the F##k? Fritjof Capra-Gaia Again, what the f##k? Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making This is a personal view of this man, it is not a source for climate research. Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy Hydrogen will never be an alternative energy source. This man is a complete fraud. The link below proves this and it is irrefutable. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Splitting hydrogen atoms from other elements uses as much energy or more than hydrogen generates. Not to mention the additional energy required to compress it into a liquid and last but not least the catastrophic dangers that go with commpressed gasses at 4000 psi. let alone highly flammable gasses http://mb-soft.com... "Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems" I guess because you say it it's the truth. No sources as you can see to back up this statement " Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion." I completely agree with this statement, But what it has to do with the climate is unclear because again you provide no source to make the correlation. "I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause" There is no evidence to nit pick, you have proved nothing and I have backed up every single thing that I have said with peer reviewed sources. The one thing the debaters should note is that my oppenet has not provided a single peer reviewed source and didn't even respond with sources to many of his prior claims in round 2.

  • PRO

    The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS...

    CCS will take far too long to implement for climate change

    Rainforest Action Network, an environmental non-profit organization, stated the following in a fact sheet on its website titled "The Dirty Truth about Clean Coal," available at www.ran.org (accessed Sep. 17, 2009): "The concept of CCS is that we can curb climate change by capturing the emissions from coal plants and store them underground, safely away from our atmosphere for eternity. The most glaring flaw in this concept is that CCS technology is not likely to be a commercially viable option for at least another decade, and new coal-fired plants are slated to begin construction now. There are also no working models of CCS at a commercial-scale power plant anywhere in the world."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Carbon_capture_and_storage