args

its Bernie or bust, We are suck of moderates, WE WANT REAL CHANGE

I like Bernie, Right now it he's the most likely to win the primary and in the general election I would vote for him over Trump a hundred times over. However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about is whether or not your guy gets in as if we were on sports teams.

Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

I'm not sure what the correct practice is regarding Pro placing nearly half of his R2 argument in the comments. This is the same debater who once copy and pasted arguments from another debate into one against me, so I am inclined to think this is considered bad form. Given that he/she is the one who proposed the character limit and never stated there would be exceptions made, I would urge voters to largely disqualify those portions from consideration. That all said, I will still try to address as much of their argument as possible. You will see that nearly all, if not all, of Pro's counterclaims are completely fabricated, baseless, and not rooted in any reputable sources (or any sources at all, for that matter). First and foremost, in the main part of Pro's argument, he/she does not list one single source despite making very bold claims in attempts to refute my scientific evidence. In the comments, they state that their source is "freaking TESLA. They f*cking make electric cars!!! And they say global warming isn't real!!!" Surely showing that this is in fact not the case should be sufficient in refuting Pro's statements, though I will go a bit further. All of Pro's arguments are directly copied and pasted from a Tesla forum and in no way are endorsed by the company itself. You can view that forum entry contributed by a group known as "Free Energy" here: https://goo.gl.... I will use actual, scientific facts and scholarly sources to show that Pro's counterclaims are not just unfounded but patently false. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, has said, "Climate change is the biggest threat that humanity faces this century," in an interview with Rolling Stone. "In the past, Musk himself has called the act of denying climate change “fraud,” and has told people, albeit jokingly, to use a thermometer if they’re unsure of the existence of global warming. Musk has never shied away from acting against the dangers that threaten the future of humanity and planet Earth." (https://goo.gl...). "Musk’s point is clear, however: climate change is real." (https://goo.gl...). Also to this point, "Tesla makes sought-after electric cars and the potential for the company to replicate this success in the heavy-duty sector is an exciting prospect for clean air and climate change." (https://goo.gl...). Further showing that Pro's claim about Tesla's stance is completely invalid and unfounded: "Electric trucks, whether manufactured by Tesla or anyone else, are essential to solving climate change and reducing air pollution. On California’s grid today, a heavy-duty electric vehicle with middle-of-the-road efficiency has 70 percent lower life cycle global warming emissions than a comparable diesel and natural gas vehicle. Electric vehicles also don’t have any tailpipe emissions of NOx, particulate matter, or other pollutants." (https://goo.gl...) This shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Pro has completely fabricated his/her claims and attributed them to a single car company whose goal is actually to combat the very phenomenon Pro is claiming to not exist. By itself, this fact should result in a nearly-automatic disqualification and I could rest my case here. However, I will go on to refute just a few of Pro's outrageously outlandish and fabricated counterpoints. Just because I don't refute a given point does not mean that it would not be possible to do so, however, out of respect for voters and the integrity of this forum, I will adhere to the character limit set by Pro. "The 0.7 - 0.9"C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends." Official NASA data shows that average annual temperature dropped every year between 1880 and 1920. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. (NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)). I do not know where Pro's claim came from, but it is clearly false. "It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries." Scientists are also finding that glaciers reveal clues about global warming. How much does our atmosphere naturally warm up between Ice Ages? How does human activity affect climate? Because glaciers are so sensitive to temperature fluctuations accompanying climate change, direct glacier observation may help answer these questions. Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating at unprecedented rates. Some scientists attribute this massive glacial retreat to the Industrial Revolution, which began around 1760. In fact, several ice caps, glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared altogether in this century. Many more are retreating so rapidly that they may vanish within a matter of decades. (National Snow and Ice Data Center). There is also the article, "Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Glaciers Melting" found here: https://goo.gl..., I do not know where Pro's claim came from (certainly not Tesla), but it is also unfounded and false. "It is a falsehood that the earth"s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder." A study published on April 6 in the journal Science found that bottom-up ice loss is also happening, particularly in the eastern Arctic Ocean where the Atlantic Ocean is making inroads. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must (again) say that this claim is baseless and false. I should also note that Pro simply pasted this line again two points later. "Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels." There is an article titled, "The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist". It says, among other things, that carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space. "After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940." Global temperatures rose in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 (https://climate.nasa.gov...). I have no idea where this claim comes from. "There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity." - "There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response." (NASA) - "Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels." (NASA) - "The amount the temperatures will increase if CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial levels...CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them...Sure enough, we can see that CO2 is adding considerable warming, along with ozone (O3) and methane (CH4). This is called surface radiative forcing, and the measurements are part of the empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the warming." (https://goo.gl...) - "There is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2." (https://goo.gl...) "A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years." - "During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source." (https://goo.gl...) - A number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008). "Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming" "It is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context" ("A poor sequel". Nature. 480 (7375): 6. December 2011) "A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992." Ignoring, for a second, the fact that the contents of this report were and are highly contested, they were released 26 years ago. Since then, great advancements have been made in all sorts of technological fields dealing with global warming. Those more modern sources are the ones I cite. A majority of these counterclaims by Pro are repeated numerous times in response to various arguments of mine, many times in ways that don't apply. Regardless of relevance, these counterclaims are all copied and pasted from a biased source that Pro claims to be Tesla, when in fact it's simply from a forum on Tesla's website. This is not just misleading, but blatantly in disregard for the integrity of the forum. I urge voters to note that not only did Pro misattribute a source to a company whose view is actually the diametric opposite of what he/she claims, but I've provided scientific evidence refuting the claims made by the actual source.

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

I apoligize for the varying (and abnormally large)sizes of graphs and charts ahead of time. Figure 1. The first graph depicts the population of Earth over time. s://lh6.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="624px;" height="396px;" /> As we can see in the graph, the world is not on the path of out of control population growth, in fact, population growth has been on the decline. Notice how this occured without any major population control methods. Figure 2. This chart depicts fertility rates in certain countries. s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="575px;" height="317px;" /> Why is this graph significant? It depicts the countries that are experiencing population growth. The countries where zero, slow, or NO growth are rich, "developed", states such as the US and Germany. The countries with high fertility rates are countries where poverty is rampant and birth control/women's rights are almost non-existent.Thus,larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of dire poverty and restrictions on women’s ability to control their own fertility The latest UN population report released on March 12 predicts population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this growth will occur in the global South. The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from 1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration). Raising living standards globally, improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater equality for women, creates a stable population growth, without the artificial constraints of population control. Unfortunately, you address the issue of climate change in your argument, without considering the implications of population control. An article by Simon Butler summarizes it perfectly: “In practice, there has never been a population control scheme that has met with acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing history in his 2008 book Fatal Misconception.[9] China’s one child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by prominent population theorists such as Britain’s Jonathan Poritt.[10] But he and others ignore that China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems. The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese women were denied any choice of contraceptive method – 37% of married women have been forcibly sterilized.[11] Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions” How can you guarantee the rights of others are not infringed in this process? Who “controls” birth? The government? And who will be in place to decide how to even control population? Many are against birth control, and obviously murder. I await your response.

Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Real

== ERRATA== CR4) NASA actually acknowledges solar cycle being responsible for past warming [12] … - it meant to point at source [13], I am sorry for typo. ==NOTE== As presented relevant sources to describe climate phenomena in my previous posts, its is now time to summarize data and claims presented by both me and my opponent. Like before, I will cite previous sources with numbering used in previous rounds and any new sources will start wit number 17. ==MAIN ARGUMENTS SUMMARY == SUM1) CO2 GH GAS SIGNIFICANCE There is no controversy between PRO and CON about CO2 being a greenhouse gas, but its significance towards AGW is being disputed. CON cited sources explaining why CO2 is not being significant and that under very generous assumptions (eg. CO2 is as strong GH gas as H2O, CO2 caused all warming between 1900 to 2000 [NOAA being cited as source of data] ) [16] show that if we doubled CO2 concentration, the upper limit of temperature increase is 1.39 �C. This includes all positive and negative feedbacks since the hyperbola is a best fit of empirical data provided by NOAA (data that my opponent defends). This rules out any kind of "Hockey stick" graph caused by CO2. Lots of Mann's assumptions are refuted in [16] too, notably that CO2 is responsible for 26% of total GH forcing, which is roughly around 5% as is supported by numerous sources cited by CON and explanation in [16]. PRO fails to provide reliable quantitative estimation of CO2 GH forcing that would refute my sources aside of correlation of temperature rise and industrialization. But that notion is supported only by hypothesis that natural phenomena couldn't cause that which brings us to next point... SUM2) NATURAL PHENOMENA AND RECENT WARMING Both PRO and CON agree natural phenomena caused cyclic climate change in the past. Question being discussed is whether this could significantly influence climate change since start of industrial age. Figures I cited in CR2 covers correlation of several natural phenomena with increase of global temperature from 1800 to 2000 and it is important to note, that increase in CO2 output do not correlate with temperature increase nor with glacier shortening ratio. It also shows perfect correlation between sun activity and arctic air temperature. PRO try to deny this fact claiming that solar activity was constant for recent century. He supported his very strong claim by single source in CA4 (the second is just temperature data) which contains NO such a claim! After being ask to show how his source supports his claim, he merely re-posted a link without quotation and blamed me for repeating myself (sic!), not addressing the matter (sic!) saying I have been refuted (sic!). I have read my opponent's re-posted source two times very carefully and found no explicit nor implicit information supporting PRO's claim! So I must conclude that PRO merely misinterprets the only figure there in very alarming way. On this basis he wants refute serious scientific papers!!! Since this problem is central to whole debate I will provide even more sources. Namely [17]: "Extending this correlation to the present suggests that solar forcing may have contributed about half of the observed 0.55�C surface warming since 1900 and one-third of the warming since 1970", [18] say: " ...annual solar irradiance variability accounts for 74% of North Hemisphere temperature anomalies from 1610 to 1800 and for 56% of variance from 1800 to present." and [19] say: "In discordance with the greenhouse effect, we believe that sunspots are the major contributor to short term climate change associated with global warming." and "Solar research quickly led to the discovery of sunspot data, which was strikingly convincing. Not only did it match historical climate data, but also coincided with human advancements/achievements throughout history. For instance, Columbus' explorations occurred when aurora numbers were high, indicating sunspot occurrence, and ultimately warmer weather. Other historical events such as the Renaissance and the Viking colonization showed close relationship with climate change, as a result of sunspots. Finally, the Irish Famine of the 1800's occurred when no auroras were present, causing colder weather and the failure of crops. In addition, sunspots have proven to have a drastic effect on the climate of Earth through the heating of our atmosphere. Sunspots are known to contribute to the formation of volcanoes, which in turn determines the composition of our atmosphere, and ultimately our climate. From this data, we can confidently state that the solar cycle of sunspots closely relates to historical climate change throughout history." Note that [17] and [18] do only deal with irradiance and Svensmark hypothesis [12] is not accounted for. Also see that my source [3] cites original scientific papers of both "sides" of debate and reviews whole scientific debate, so everyone can check it. ==COMMENTS TO MINOR ARGUMENTS== C1) "Hockey stick" graph is defended by PRO on bases of computer models of few scientists and denial of MWP. He thinks that it beats "more than 200 peer-reviewed research papers produced by more than 660 individual scientists working in 385 separate institutions from 40 different countries that comment on the MWP" [3] page 69. C2) PRO says he rebutted my claim of UHI temperature bias in CA3 and merely re-post his source again. So lets examine the source that was posted in 2006. The author (if you click at his name) describes himself as: "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." and source where he points at NASA GISS analysis show only that some steps were taken to deal with it. The author however cannot evaluate whether the adjustments were sufficient. My source is study released in 2009 that takes NASA adjustments up to that time into account and finds that adjustments are inadequate. Therefore it was PRO's source that was rebutted, not mine. C3) In CA5 PRO claims it doesn't matter IPCC was wrong. But how can he blame CO2 on basis of models that are wrong about how CO2 warms atmosphere? C4) POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE WATER FEEDBACK This area is to a large extent unknown. Many papers are being released recently discovering both positive and negative feedbacks. Some of recent papers finds strong positive feedback of water vapor like [20], which is being criticized by [21], some finds prevalent negative feedback [22]: "Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing". Note these feedbacks are related to temperature, not CO2 so PRO must defend his hypothesis that CO2 significantly causes temperature increase to even start this argument. C5) Carbon sinks Ocean takes less CO2 because temperature increase (solubility), not because its full. If CO2 pressure rise solubility rise. If CO2 doubles plants grow much faster (= photosyntetize more CO2). See the sources I cited because I am out of space. ==NOTE== PRO's lack of attention to sources is alarming as we see and he blames me for his own misconduct. ==SOURCES== [17] J Lean 1998: http://journals.ametsoc.org...(1998)011%3C3069%3ACFBCSR%3E2.0.CO%3B2 [18] J Lean 1995: http://www.geo.umass.edu... [19] Orbital Forcing: http://www.orbitalforcing.com... [20] Dessler 2008: http://www.agu.org... [21] Spencer 2009: http://www.drroyspencer.com... [22] Paltrige 2008: http://www.springerlink.com...