• CON

    billions of dollars in media & military embezzlements go...

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

    "You do not understand that this is a debate on climate change and not evoultion." ... WHAT do you mean? You said I don't understand this debate is not about Evolution. Are you incoherent? Or just a twat? You go on to say, that it is FACTUAL and PROVEN and SCIENTIFIC to suggest that the world is hundreds of thousands if not millions or billions of years old. HA. Science is Observation, in order to determine fact from theory. SO that doesn't support your case that the OZONE is real. In correlation to your proposition: We can see oxygen come out of leaves. Fire needs fuel. It burns on oxygen. Fire doesn't go out in container with leaves. One valid example. YOU git. You say you're a scientist (informed and aware) and I am not, but I can prove you're an idiot, and you lost. Now, It is not wrong to call an idiot an idiot. So I am not unformal. Nor am I being unprofessional. But fro an idiot to call anyone an idiot is idiocy. So watch your step. You can't stipulate I lack evidence in God because YOU "have not seen" it. I simply stated that I have not seen the Ozone. And regarding the OZONE, the term 'Gullible' comes to mind. billions of dollars in media & military embezzlements go into rocket science. Doesn't mean they found an OZONE. Also, the atmosphere is supposedly 190 000 km high, while the space station is only 3000km high. Where is this ozone? Near the Top you said? Oxygen the super heavy gas. OZONE hole over the south pole folks. Where no one including my opponent ever saw it. borderline delusional. To be so defensive and offensive over it's existence. I never heard anyone in my life ever say Cutting grass with non renewable resources is clinical insanity, criminal and is also denial of the Word of God {the form of denial being: destroying the world, vanity, delusion, earthly attachment, selfish, bigoted, a waste... poor expenditure of time and land. etc...) BUt that's okay, Because I didn't join this debate with nothing in my pockets. SO I'mma roll you out flat for being a bigot and attacking my religion which you obviously never investigated prior to wanking yourself - HARD. As a theoretical physicist I can determine that everything has a maximum potential for holding energy. That the energy follows the path of least resistance. Thermal dynamics playing a very key role in this. {The sun draws energy in and expels energy at an equal rate, creating Energy pools, not gravitational pull, nor energy thrust. As an example. thus explaining physics, and suggesting all contrary theories came out of the as of a 'toad'.} [For as you see, atoms cling to one another. They don't part. Thus, if you have a mass of molecules, that mass will forever stay the same size so long as it remains in a vacuum, and it will not disperse. Thus the sun will always soak up and expel the same amount of energy and never burn out, unless a foreign element contaminates it's chemistry after following a path of certain dynamics. Not Gravity, but slip-sliding/slip-streaming in the path of least residence. DO you follow me? The earth as a whole, atmosphere included is the same way. It takes in and expels the same amount of energy every second of the day. Not letting go if the sun goes out, and not soaking more fi the sun expanded. 100% capacity is met and determined and doe snot change. Specific objects in our atmosphere can change temperature, because the body as a whole can move it's energy and fluxuate the balance of nature. I'm a Christian, this is my religion.^^^ the better version of physics. The proven, factual version. The Christian Gordon Version. BIATCH. I patented that Theory. WEATHER change is real. Climate change is a a$s-hat spouted by self righteous-atheists to pretend they care as they continue to advocate atheism to womanizers, corrupt politicians, lazy boyfriends, self-indulgent people and people who Get SOOoooo emotional during conversations with God that they black mail him and refuse to use logic because of the emotional enmity they built Up. My point. You don't understand HOW climate change can be NOT real, and therefor you can't hold your in in this debate. You have to understand my side of the debate to argue with it. ~"You can't say God isn't real simply because YOU never seen him." {PS. blackmailing God, saying you'll promote atheism if he doesn't talk to you is the biggest blasphemy there is** blasphemy against the HOLY SPIRIT (Good Will)} But if your cherry-picking, I suggest You read my argument. Cause I'm coming back next round with another load.

  • PRO

    You have to disprove my statement using logic and not...

    Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

    This is a debate. You have to disprove my statement using logic and not supply some totally irrelevant analogy from the Amazon. You are in breach of the laws of physics here. You are supporting a bunch of climate nincompoop criminals who have huge egos that think they can control the Earth's climate by their words and actions. Humans are like ants and the climate is an elephant. A weather front is 5, 000 kilometres in length in most cases. What are they going to do to stop a weather front? Are they going to erect some wind mills blowing in the opposite direction? Lol

  • CON

    However, what is more open to discussion, is whether the...

    Humans cause climate changing

    There is no doubt the temperature of the earth is rising. The temperature figures prove this. However, what is more open to discussion, is whether the changing However, what is more open to discussion, is whether the changing climate is due to human influence or if it some natural phenomenon. My opponent has based her case around the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere. Again, while atmospheric CO2 levels are high, it is not a certainty that this is caused by humans. In fact, the globe has, at periods in it's past, been hotter than it is now. In the Mesozoic era. better know as the reign of the dinosaurs, the climate was much hotter and dryer than it is now and there was certainly no industry back then to emit greenhouse gases. There was also little or no ice at the poles for extended periods of time. My point is, if there is proof that it happened once, then why can't the climate rise without human interference yet again. (http://www.enchantedlearning.com...) My next point is in regards to my opponents link between deforestation and climate change. While it is a problem that deforestation has such a negative impact on the ecosystem and is threatening the lives of many species, it is not a climate change issue. Tree's are not actually the best organisms for removing C02 from the air. This title belongs to algae. A colony of algae has the ability to photosynthesise more carbon dioxide in a year than a tree will in it's entire life. Add to this the fact that algae can reproduce rapidly, take up less space, and are now being farmed for their sustainable properties and biomass promises and the loss of a few CO2 reducing trees does not have such a devastating affect on the atmosphere. (http://www.ecogreenglobe.com...) (http://allaboutalgae.com...) Also, humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases. Methane a gas that has stronger greenhouse affect than CO2 has been rising off wetlands for ages. While humans do contribute to methane in the atmosphere, wetlands have long been responsible for methane emmisions due to methane producing bacteria. Termites, Hydrates, Wild Fires and Animals also all produce methane. My point here is that, while humans are producing chemicals like methane and CO2, so to is the environment, meaning that humans are not he only source and hence not the ultimate cause of the greenhouse affect. (http://www.epa.gov...) 24hrs is rather short time to research and formulate arguments to I'll leave it at that for now and await my opponents response.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Humans-cause-climate-changing/1/
  • CON

    As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new...

    The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

    To warrant putting the Great Recession on the side, these would be nice answers to have. I'm going to keep this round rather brief and, hopefully then, concise. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my Case Franklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. Climate Change cannot be stopped. It's a perpetual process. Humans no more caused it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] then they can stop it. It should also not be ignored that the human experience is destined to become, one day, as finite as the dinosaur. However, what we do have control over is our well-being. And economics, as dull as it proves through a teacher's mouth, is a very considerable determinant of a person's well-being. And that very same economics right now is putting a lot of working fathers and mothers on the street. This debate has been rather general, thus far. But let's not forget it's reach-in-topic is real. Millions of people have lost that state of well-being, and that's one thing that we have control over to fix. We should not give up that attempt for the sake of something perpetual in nature. In the truest sense, the economy ought to be taken care of first. In Conclusion That's all for now, I'll hand back over to Pro http://www.forbes.com... [1] http://useconomy.about.com...[2] http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com...[3] http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org... [4] http://american.com... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.wisegeek.com... [7] http://climatechange.procon.org... [8] http://climatechange.procon.org...[9] http://climatechange.procon.org... [10] http://climatechange.procon.org...[11] http://climatechange.procon.org...

  • CON

    To debunk the Myth, ~ McDonalds sells so much meat it's...

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

    I said, "Cutting grass with non renewable resources was idiocy." So my opponent, lacking substance to support his own claim, Says "HA! look at this fool." and he wasted his entire round two debate, pointing out what I had already said. He then goes on to deny that animals that have no food or water, can't outrun seasons or predators, can't catch prey etc... some how evolve. And that evolution thereby suggests that millions of years of change in the climate is or is not real, but regardless had no evidence to prove that. NOR were the last 90 years of temperatures recorded, day and night, day to day, or even month to month. Then he goes on for two more rounds about the OZONE, because he had no other claims to make than, "there is a hole over the Antarctic" sure sure, and McDonalds isn't being attacked by BurgerKing, Wendies, A&W and all other privately owned restaurants who also sell burgers for $7 because they sell cheap burgers. To debunk the Myth, ~ McDonalds sells so much meat it's always fresh. Derp. But the OZONE Gullible strike a bell? I agree Eating up non renewable resources sucks for the future, "Hey dad, Can I ride the motorbike?" *kicks kid* "Nope!" ** BRRM BRRRMM *** and polluting water is retarded as shitting in it. But You can't bring evidence the OZONE is real here so bring substance to the debate. I made it easy on you. Billions in government embezzlements in media and military, and you went head over heals for the topic of debate used to disillusion the masses. :P Pulling some strings here :P But what is the difference between 'Climate' and 'Weather' ? I had no debate here. I was playing. Because I thin it helps everyone to read what I say about things. You just happened to be atheist, so your brain stopped working, as apposed to a theist, who thinks their opponent is so stupid there is no point in communicating.

  • PRO

    The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide...

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

    No, your first two references do not show anything. The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah. The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah. The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in climate science. This, of course, is just a massive appeal to authority fallacy. False Information What?! You know you can't just say "that's not true" and then have something not be true, right? Climate change poses a threat to humanity Here: http://www.greenpeace.org... Here: http://www.greenpeace.org...; Aaaand here: http://www.who.int...; Earth Self Regulates Where'd you get that from? The graphs obviously show that the temperature has not stayed level, so this point is just misinformation. "Hockey stick is broken" No it isn't, ya silly: https://www.skepticalscience.com... "CO2 increase doesn't affect temperature." *sigh* Graphs. What even is this point. It talks about radiation, then some arbitrary distance, then shortening that arbitrary difference, then talks about how distance =/= temperature (reasonable), and finally throws out some arbitrary percentage to top it all off.

  • CON

    IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    As a reminder to the judges and my opponent, The debate is on whether or not the US should make the terraforming of our earth a LOW priority or a med-high priority. I'm going to rephrase some of my opponent's arguments to be yes/no questions. See how many you agree with. 1. Scientists are sure there will be a catastrophe, But since they can't us exactly how many trillions of dollars it will cost it should be a low priority. 2. Since I as a non-scientist deem the scientist's proposed solutions unappealing, We should not fund their research fully until they have already developed solutions that appeal to me 100%. 3. If there isn't ONE solution to climate change we should not take the proposed solutions seriously. I don't think 20 different solutions that get us small portions of the way there is a viable way to deal with climate change. IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from solar, Wind, Geothermal, Or nuclear. We can't use all of them. 4. I think when climate research is funded that money disappears off the face of the planet instead of being circulated back through the economy. All $2T of research (if that is true) is completely gone off the face of the Earth. (This is not how economies work) 5. I said funding for climate change should be the equivalent of the space race which was high priority but that doesn't mean I conceded that climate change should be high priority. 6. It shouldn't be governments that have to answer to the people that should deal with the terraforming of our planet, It should be private companies who aren't answerable to the people. 7. Other problems exist. We can't solve those other problems at the same time as we solve climate change, Because the scientists who study those problems definitely stop studying those problems and working on solutions to those problems and focus instead on areas of research outside of their field of study. Definitely. This is the problem with my opponent's line of reasoning. There need not be ONE solution to climate change. If something gets us 5% of the way there, That's great. If research is funded for solutions, We will find better and more practical solutions as well, Which may allow us more control over the climate in case the climate scientists are wrong and the climate starts cooling. Solar power CAN give us more than 100% of current power requirements easily. I'm not sure why he is pretending it cannot. I gave sources for this. The sun is a literal fusion reactor many times the size of our planet. I couldn't even get him to concede this point. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. I can list hundreds of different problems. The sad fact is most of them don't lead to catastrophes. Diseases, Malnutrition, Poverty, And malaria in particular would all be significantly increased with a warmer climate. No economist agrees with tariffs and those can be gone whenever Trump wants. The negative terraforming of our planet is the most serious problem we face today.

  • CON

    This would not be the best way to determine if climate...

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

    This would not be the best way to determine if climate change is man made because we alread know that it isn't, and if we reduced our CO2 emmissions this would cripple our economies severely.

  • PRO

    According to an alarming new report by a U.N. panel of...

    New UN climate change report says just 12 years till life on earth hits point of no return — again

    According to an alarming new report by a U.N. panel of scientists, humans have just 12 years to get their ecological affairs in order before the environment — and climate change — hits a critical tipping point.

  • PRO

    President Trump on Monday said he doesn’t believe his...

    Trump doesn't believe U.S. government predictions of huge economic losses from climate change

    President Trump on Monday said he doesn’t believe his administration’s new report that predicted climate change would shave 10 percent off the U.S. economy by the end of the century.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/trump-rejects-us-climate-change-report