args

Sustainable Development And Climate Change

Not until the spread of the Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, has man possessed the ability to adversely alter, on a global scale, the geologic and climatic cycles that have existed for millennia. Planet earth, which man calls home, is approximately 5 billion years old. The science of paleontology tells us that man is a relative new comer to the planet. Modern man did not arrive on the scene until approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Developments in hunting, agriculture, literacy, and the sciences, have allowed man to thrive and inhabit nearly every corner of the planet. However, this success has not been good for the earth. The world's population has recently surpassed 6 billion and the developed countries community models and lifestyles are not sustainable. Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and entertainment construction has spread across the surface of the planet like an oil slick. We are depleting resources and altering ecosystems at an alarming rate. Only now are we beginning to comprehend the long-term effects of more than a century of environmental ignorance, neglect, and apathy.

The big lie of climate change

Can you prove that they are wrong? No, since they are already happening right now over in Africa where it is hard for africans to make a living off the land and deserts across the world are already expanding, temperatures fall drastically over a long period of time in Winter and rise drastically over a long period of time in the summer. Have you looked at this year and saw that is was still 80 degrees in March and April?

The big lie of climate change

I can prove it, just wait a 100 years. And I can prove god: Kill yourself and see if you go in front of god in the after-life.

The big lie of climate change

If the world rises by: (in F) 1.8 degrees; stronger hurricanes, flooding in Northern Europe. (around Netherlands) 3.6 degrees; Shanghai will be submerged, Heat waves across Europe, Glaciers feeding India's rivers melt causing flooding, Plants become heat stressed, emitting CO^2 rather than storing it causing the Global warming process to speed up, forest fires, drying riverbeds 5.4 degrees; The Amazon Rain Forest, Also called the lungs of the world since it produces 10% of the world's oxygen, is killed off by a combination of of drought and fire. It demise release huge amounts of CO^2 into the atmosphere. Elsewher, billions starve as crop yields dwindle. Swathes of Africa, India, and China are now wastelands. Around 80% of the Aric Sea ice has melted and would raise global sea levels up by 84 feet. Submerging many low land countries like Bangledesh. 7.2 degrees; sea levels rise 3 feet year causing Britain to be a bunch of small islands. Florida and many other parts of the U.S. is submerged under water. Dessertification causes people in the Mediterranean to abandoned. In northern latitudes, the melting of permafrost increases raises sea levels yet furthur. 9.0 degrees; All rain forests are all now deserts and all ice has been melted causing sea levels to be more than 197 ft than it is now. Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of food 10.8 degrees; As oceans get warmer they can't support marine life, Stagnant seas release hydrogen sulfide that poisons the land. If flammable methane is ignited (by like lightning), huge firballs sweep across the land, causing more loss of life. Source: Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013 DK

Anthropogenic climate change.

Round 4 defense. My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again. "Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to. Proof: "There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative "My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal. "Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.