args

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

It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide. If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere. This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe. I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now. 2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects. 3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority. 4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all. 5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate. 6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs. mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world" Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht

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

I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical. 2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane. 3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use. 4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily. 5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. 6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution. Again, This is not a LOW priority.

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

Climate technically is a big problem. Flooding would be an instant problem, And I know the solution for that is gonna be "They can build walls and stuff" BUT USA is already in debt and needs to repay countries, And to do something like that would take billions of dollars. Plus flooding could cause another problem. Power. "Oh no but we can just add more solar pannels" Yeahhhh. . . But then money. Plus overpopulation is gonna be a big problem and with less land means less homes for people. I'll state my argument here for now and see what you have to say

Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon

BACKGROUND: This debate is consequence of QT's claim she can prove recent GW is more then 75% accountable to human influence, based on climate's CO2 sensitivity (derived from models) and simple equation. After debate, I gave my opinion on climate models reliability in this case and argued against QT's conclusions that are contradicted by hard data and known natural forcings. http://www.debate.org... ACCEPTANCE: After that it would be impolite to decline QT's challenge despite the fact I'm very busy this month so I ACCPET the debate. I would therefore prefer this debate to be concise and focused on the major issues. I hope won't need 8k words per round to express our point. I shall point out general modelling limitations as well as specific contradictions between models and measurements and quote some resumes from scientific papers dealing with this problem. I assume that climate model's means models that were used or cited by IPCC in last decade as whole (usually more than one is used to get averages) and I do not have to prove every single model wrong in detail in order to fulfill my job as Con. I don't have English as my first language, but voters can feel free to punish me for big mistakes. I am looking forward to a good debate.

The climate is not "a changing".

A brief response My opponent has denied that his assertion about the IPCC being communists is irrelevant to the debate. He also clames I did not address this point. Obviously both these things are wrong, It is a red herring, And I addressed it when I called it such. If he'd like, He can attempt to justify why the IPCC has any bearing on whether global warming is real or not. I will not use the IPCC as a source because it appears to trigger him. He would like me to show and justify my arguments, Without doing so himself. I hope voters/viewers see through his clearly dishonest tactic and address the fact he didn't actually make an argument; he just stated something and assumed we would believe it's justifiable. The Anthropological Case for Global Warming I will argue that global warming is, Atleast in part, Being increased by anthropogenic activities. 1a. ) Carbon Dioxide levels have never been this high, In the course of over 400000 years. [1][2] 2a. ) Human activity has directly caused the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. [3] 3a. ) Atmospheric CO2 increases the global temperature. [3][4] C. 1; If these things are scientifically accurate, Humans must be causing global warming. The Geological Case for Global Warming This has very little to do with the cause, Only that it exists. 1b. ) Temperature on the Earth fluctuates. [5] 2b. ) Temperature on the Earth is currently rising rapidly. [6] C. 2; If these things are scientifically accurate, Global warming is true. Sources on my profile

Global warming is real

Well, if you were to look at the atomic mass of a cat, oh which over the last many year, has never changed. If we were to let say look at carbon dating, if global warming was real, it would have had to of changed at lest .000879, of which it has not. We can also look at other signs lets say Mormon Jesus, in my opinion the worst god, but that doesn't matter, if we were to look to the bible for light we would find that it states, "Thee earth shall not change, no matter how much humans dare try to change the world". Now this hard core evidence doesn't just do me in but many like me such as cat lovers all over the world, and crazy old folk who think global warming is real. Now you see I am Pro global warming and can't think of anything to go against it, you win great one. Sources sited: 4chan.org http://www.reddit.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://cats.wikia.com... Global warming is an issue on which humankind has come to unanimous agreement with unprecedented speed. The Earth is warming, or else it's cooling, or else it's not doing either very fast. If left unchecked, this will lead to the destruction of civilization, probably, in a Biblical flood that will happen around 1995. Humans' prosperity and rich diets, breaking faith with Nature, and anything else you may feel guilty about, are the cause. Unless it's sunspots. And all of the above is brought to you by one or more of the following: Barack Obama, who was not content taking over GM and now wants your backyard Hibachi. Communists, One-Worlders, and left-wing pot-heads. US right-wingers, talking up a threatening leftie crusade to help them raise money for a comeback in 2012. Greedy businessmen who need a gimmick to sell you light bulbs that spatter mercury all over the nursery when they break. In short, humankind is at loggerheads over both the facts, the culprits, and the proper course of action, with no resolution in sight, as on every other issue of the day. So things are pretty normal on the planet. Ps: Gata love wiki <3

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

The fundamental flaw is that population control is downplaying the real solution: technology and equality, so let’s look at the hypothetical situation about the house that you used earlier. Say you lived in a large house which was heated by an old wood burning stove. It was enough to keep warm but created small amounts of smoke, but it wasn’t in issue then. Eventually, your brother and sister came to live with you in the house. However, the stove did not produce enough heat to warm everyone, so you had another wood burning stove installed. Later, you allow your friend to sleep in the basement because he’s a good guy and helps around the house, even though he’ll need another two stoves. Soon, other family come to live in your house. Now you have an issue, smoke is wafting through the house and irritating everyone’s eyes and the stoves are taking up space. What do you do? Do you kick out your brother and sister, or the other people? One of the inhabitants argues that you should kick out some residents, which would leave them without a home. Many protested this idea. The solution is simple: install heaters. Not only have you saved space by reducing size, they are now more efficient and much more capable of heating up the room, without the smoke. Not only this, but you decide that your friend live upstairs where he saves space and energy and where he can help around the house. Now your residents can stay happy and warm. The solution not only made the house more comfortable, it saved space, and money. Also, the friend was now in a better situation making all the residents equal and able to contribute. That is the power of technology. Now I could address every single contention,that would take time and too much words. Instead, you mention technology in your argument, saying: “Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?” Exactly! We could use desalination to produce water, we could develop better solutions to conserving and creating fresh water. Technology has already allowed us to do such things, and it would solve the issue of dehydration for so many thirsting populations and in arid regions, creating solution that saves lives without polar ice melt. We could develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas! Not only could this possibly solve the starvation problem for many people, but it could bring prosperity, economy, tourism, and yes, oxygen that could help the atmosphere! We can create (and are) self-sufficient homes and apartments that use renewable energy and blend with environment. Eventually, we as population would save BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS by producing ways for more efficient and bountiful farming methods and cleaner environment and improving the lifestyles of BILLIONS of people. But why do this, when you can introduce an authoritarian way to restrict the right of reproduction and in contrast to the religions of BILLIONS of people, many who would resist any legislation to facilitate a large increase of what they consider murder of a innocent babies(Which I would agree with them and multiple scientific studies as well)? Also, you reciprocate many urges that the world is on the verge of overpopulation and a dying planet, yet, you yourself mention that it is a “working system”? AND, you consider contraception methods such as abortion and birth control pills more natural than advancing the human race into a more energy efficient and thriving society? A race terminating its birth rate (which mostly unsuccessful as I will mention in a later argument) is somehow more natural. by the way, “near free” is extremely misleading. Millions of dollars are spent in advertising, passing, and the execution of the bill, much less one that would control birth rates of BILLIONS of people, ie. the funding to create a executive body to enforce it. Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It’s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does. The human body obviously emit negligible amounts of pollution, and if we create the technology to create efficient energy it would save money in the long-run, as well as allowing us to create even more ways to help the planet, which provides us more money to advance equality and end poverty and thus lend more minds to advance technology, etc.