Topic space view
1038 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms
  • PRO

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation...

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea…

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even greater pressure on freshwater resources in the next century. As a result international tensions over water use are likely to escalate into conflict – water wars. Free market approaches provide the best means of avoiding such conflicts, as countries that trade with each other are less likely to go to war. And creating a commodity price for water also means that demand can be substantially reduced, so that there is more to go around and pressures are relieved.

    • https://debatewise.org/3045-water-resources-a-commodity/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.38
      climate: 12.33
      conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 6.27 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.73)
      change: 8.04
      conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)
      premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.73)
  • PRO

    Your response: yes it can (but no source). ... Unless you...

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

    I will use this round to respond to your sources and claims. --- 1. 1 --- "Peak" warming You suggested that I should focus on "peak" (instead of "delayed") warming. In Round 3, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit was your source. But it discusses peak EMISSIONS not peak WARMING, And it supports my position not yours! If emissions had peaked in 2015, ECIU says world emissions must be ZERO FOREVER starting in 2070 to achieve "2C max rise forever. " What ECIU calls "net-zero, " I call "returning to the stone age. " Since emissions still haven't peaked, It says we will need negative emissions for half the Century. ECIU's best idea to achieve net-zero: plant trees. This is laughable, But I will accept planting trees as a high priority. The other good idea (storing CO2 underground) "offers limited potential, " aka won't work. --- 2. 1 --- Earth's History You said, "In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age. " In effect this says natural climate change matters more than man-made climate change. It also suggests Science can provide a "global thermostat" regardless of Nature's prerogatives. --- 2. 2 --- Solution: Dimming the sun? You provided a Guardian article about solar dimming. But for $10B per year, The Guardian expects a "complement to--not a substitute for--aggressive emissions reductions action" that "destabilizes things" so that scientists can't predict its benefit (or harm). --- 2. 3 --- Solution: Solar alone? I provided a source that says solar CANNOT scale to replace oil. Your response: yes it can (but no source). --- 3. 1 --- Some "poison" CO2 is not a poison, Neither is Methane. Unless you also think that sugar, Salt, And water are poisons. After all, Too much of any of these will kill a person. --- 3. 2 --- "Lay down and die" Your description of the CATASTROPHE did not include mass deaths. You mentioned human costs, But nothing concrete. I think a source for how many people will die globally under the status quo would greatly improve this debate. Do you have one? --- 3. 3 --- Moon Landing Your comparison supports my position not yours! We agree that this should have been a low priority. Between Kennedy's challenge and the moon landing, The USA spent $47B on NASA (1). That's $325B in constant 2015 dollars. The USA has already spent about $177B (2015 dollars) on fixing the climate (2). I'm willing to fund another $150B MAX on it. --- 3. 4 --- Precise numbers How can climate science forecast increases in hurricanes (or whatever) with CONFIDENCE, But not forecast decreases in hurricanes AT ALL? Are they not equivalent calculations? I did not ask for "a 100% solution. " I asked for evidence of results from $2T. Even small results would help your side show the size of the problem. Why is there no answer? (1) theguardian. Com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel (2) climatedollars. Org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

  • PRO

    Joe Biden wrapped up a team heavy on deal-makers and...

    Deal-makers and fighters make up Biden’s new climate team

    Joe Biden wrapped up a team heavy on deal-makers and fighters to lead his climate effort Thursday, tasking it with remaking and cleaning up the nation’s transportation and power-plant systems, and as fast as politically possible. While the president-elect’s picks have the experience to do the heavy lifting required in a climate overhaul of the U.S. economy, they also seem to be reassuring skeptics that he won’t neglect the low-income, working class and minority communities hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution and climate change.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/biden-names-climate-change-cabinet-team
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.27
      climate: 16.51
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      premises: 8.60 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)
      sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 3.76
      premises: 3.37 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.31)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    Firstly I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Ice Ages are real (I don't expect you to argue that ice ages are NOT real) The Earth has experienced five ice ages that we know of Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation. The current ice age that Earth is in is the Quaternary, within the Quaternary we are in an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch. "The Holocene is a geologicalepoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (at 11,700 calendar years BP) [2] and continues to the present." http://en.wikipedia.org... As you can see from the table ^ posted above, The earth has experienced temperatures far warmer than we currently are experiencing, and likewise has experienced temperatures far cooler than we are currently experiencing. And this is just in a relatively short period (geologically speaking) and within our current ice age. The Greenland ice sheet is thought to be fairly young, only to have formed in the Oligocene epoch, and most likely to have retreated and advanced many times. http://en.wikipedia.org... The beginning of this ice age is referred to as the time when permanent ice sheets were established on Greenland and Antarctica, thus the end of the last ice age was set by the absence of those permanent ice sheets. In summary, we know there have been five separate ice ages and within those ice ages there are multiple glacial and interglacial periods where these ice sheets have retreated and advanced. I contend that with all the geological evidence available to us, the Greenland ice sheets would retreat with or without the impact of humans. We may in fact be having an impact on glaciation, but regardless of that impact, glaciation would occur with or without us as it has for hundreds of millions of years. There are forces at work that affect our global climate far greater than the man made Co2 which is measure in ppm (parts per million) These forces include but are not limited to: Solar Output http://en.wikipedia.org... Orbital Forcing http://en.wikipedia.org... Volcanism http://en.wikipedia.org... Plate Tectonics http://en.wikipedia.org... Ocean Currents http://en.wikipedia.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 20.23
      climate: 12.93
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.73 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.78)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)
      change: 7.30
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
  • PRO

    Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have...

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

    ===== Begin DISCLAIMER ===== This is a Politics debate. I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore, ---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE ---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate ===== End DISCLAIMER ===== When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate. It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the political response to it. In Round 2, I will try my first argument that the CATASTROPHE [per your description] allows for the US political response to be putting it at the bottom of our priority list. In each of the remaining rounds, I will make an additional argument to support my thesis. In all rounds, Please do your best to rebut my arguments.

  • PRO

    If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do...

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

    Closing Arguments A === Minimal Scientific Consensus Two times (here and in another debate of mine) you referred to the consensus from "98% of climate scientists. " But all Science tells us for sure is that there is some warming and some of it is our fault. Beyond that, There is no consensus. Science does not agree on the size of warming--neither overall, Nor from humans; not on the CATASTOPHE--not P and Q costs, Climate-related deaths, When it will occur, Or lost hectares of livable and arable land; not on the path forward--neither an emissions target, Nor viable ways to achieve it. B === Your Pathetic Solutions You seem unfamiliar with solutions to what you call "the highest priority for any country. " You cited 2 kinds of solutions: known failures (solar dimming, Storing CO2 underground, Planting trees), And preposterous ideas (Sahara Desert solar panels, Dyson Spheres). I said I'm willing to spend money on planting trees. I consider this very different than "fixing the climate. " If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do we need ANY climate research? C === Open Questions You seem unfamiliar with world progress against what you call "the highest priority for any country. " I ask again, What has $2T bought us so far? If nothing, Then we should not waste any more money, Or we should fall back to planting trees. If it is unknown, Then environmentalists are not really concerned with progress, And climate spending is a bottomless pit. In Round 4, I expressed willingness to cap future USA spending at $150B. You retorted that this qualifies as "high priority. " Is the USA halfway done then? I doubt you believe that. D === Power? One of the main reasons I don't want to pursue fixing the climate is the transfer of power from people to government. The most common "solutions" offered in politics are raising taxes and government spending. These all have dubious benefit to the climate, But they CERTAINLY increase the power of governments. Clearly the politics of climate are questionable. This is a serious concern for many people in the USA. E === Better Priorities While you think that "fixing the climate" should be THE highest, There are many other projects that are should be higher, Considering both the money and moral sides. The moral side is based on life-and-death consequences. The financial side is based on immediately viable solutions and low cost per saved-life. The TED talk "Global priorities bigger than climate change" provides the following recommendations. The U. N. Estimates that for half the cost of "fixing the climate, " we could solve all these world problems and more: --- AIDS --- $3. 4B prevents 3. 5 million new AIDS cases per year --- Malnutrition --- $12B buys health for about half of cases worldwide --- Poverty --- Reducing tariffs in USA and Europe (no govt spending, Just higher prices in the 1st World) raises 300 million people out of poverty in five years --- Malaria --- $3B buys about 1 million saved lives per year

  • CON

    Human emissions account for 37 gigatons per annum. ......

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

    I'm happy, Although slightly bewildered, By the chance to take this debate. I'll address, Right off the bat, That there are a few minor issues with the opinion of the opposing debator. He starts with some minor claims such as: Volcanoes release 1000 times more Co2 then humans could hope to release. This is. . . Absurdly inaccurate. Current estimates by the United States Geological Survey, Which tracks all global Volcanic activity, Estimates the total amount of Co2 released by volcanoes per year to be 0. 44 gigatons per annum. Human emissions account for 37 gigatons per annum. Natural emissions, About 15 Gigatons per annum. Sulfur and other atmospheric conditions are temporary, As can be seen by the "mini ice age" which lasted for seven. Greenhouse gasses, As far as we can tell, Are nearly permament. Humanity is not a small presence, Even as our individual presence is small. A slime mold on a ball, No matter how large each cell compared to the ball, Effects the surface. According to a recent article by Scientific American, Human CO2 emissions are roughly equal to emissions as burning down the entirety of Africa, Every single year. Or an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions produced by 1700 Mt St. Helena eruptions, Again, Per annum. Greenhouse gasses are trace, Yes, But trace gasses, Including CO2, Do not need high concentrations to reach dangerous effects in an atmosphere that goes up for 70 kilometers and traps gigajoules of heat from the sun. Greenhouse gasses, As well as albedo, Are driving forces for temperature on the surface. As far as well can tell, The greenhouse gasses are higher then they were 10 million years before, As obtained by rock and ice core samples. It's been well established by modelling and atmospheric infrared experimentation, That most of the Human emissions account for 37 gigatons per annum. Natural emissions, About 15 Gigatons per annum. Sulfur and other atmospheric conditions are temporary, As can be seen by the "mini ice age" which lasted for seven. Greenhouse gasses, As far as we can tell, Are nearly permament. Humanity is not a small presence, Even as our individual presence is small. A slime mold on a ball, No matter how large each cell compared to the ball, Effects the surface. According to a recent article by Scientific American, Human CO2 emissions are roughly equal to emissions as burning down the entirety of Africa, Every single year. Or an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions produced by 1700 Mt St. Helena eruptions, Again, Per annum. Greenhouse gasses are trace, Yes, But trace gasses, Including CO2, Do not need high concentrations to reach dangerous effects in an atmosphere that goes up for 70 kilometers and traps gigajoules of heat from the sun. Greenhouse gasses, As well as albedo, Are driving forces for temperature on the surface. As far as well can tell, The greenhouse gasses are higher then they were 10 million years before, As obtained by rock and ice core samples. It's been well established by modelling and atmospheric infrared experimentation, That most of the climate shifts on earth, Ranging from the ice age, To the Jurassic era, When the arctic had a temperate climate, Were the result of CO2. Doubling the amount of these trace gasses is not a light matter.

  • CON

    Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists...

    Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

    Mr. Merrill's opening statement shows, rightly, what I have said and shown, multiple times, in this debate: There is uncertainty. Mr. Merrill's reply here is also a Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. He is no longer dealing with facts but opinion: ignoring the heart of the discussion; what do the FACTS, or the DATA say? "What do we KNOW", not "who agrees with whom". Uncertainty: AR5 Final Draft, Chapter 9, page 5/205: "The majority of Earth System models now include an interactive representation of aerosols... uncertainties in sulphur-cycle processes and natural sources and sinks remain and so, for example, the simulated aerosol optical depth over oceans ranges from 0.08 to 0.22 with roughly equal numbers of models over- and underestimating the satellite-estimated value of 0.12." From page 27: "By contrast, there is limited evidence that the hiatus in GMST trend has been accompanied by a slower rate of increase in ocean heat content over the depth range 0"700 m, when comparing the period 2003"2010 against 1971"2010. There is low agreement on this slowdown, since three of five analyses show a slowdown in the rate of increase while the other two show the increase continuing unabated (Section 3.2.3, Figure 3.2)." Also, from Chapter 9: "During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26"C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16"C per decade)." Where are these "uncertainties" in the final report? There is ONE: SPM-10: "There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years." Then there is Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC"s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as: Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA; Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas; Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences; Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher; Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans. Not to mention, it appears a great many of scientists are "skeptical": http://goo.gl... Secondly, a good number of scientists violate Mr. Merrill's stated ideal, "Far from being alarmists"... Many scientists are involved in AGW Alarmist Activism: Of the 13 senior scientists who put together USGCRP"s January 2013 draft report, seven have ties to activist groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund. Chair Jerry Melillo is a contributing author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Vice Chair Gary Yohe is part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Climate Witness Program. Richard Moss is a former vice president for WWF. James Buizer is on the Board of Directors of the environmental activist group Second Nature. Susanne Moser is a former staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Andrew Rosenberg is a director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Donald Weubbles is an author for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). See also: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... "Con presumed that because he could provide nine links..." I'll stop you there. Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I provided several links that showed mistakes that have been made as ONE of several evidences that Climate Alarmism is wrong. "This is Con"s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. My position is, and has been, about climate alarmism. I have provided a great many links and sources that show the NATURAL variations in climate, the NATURAL responses of the earth to increased CO2 and the LACK of evidence for AGW affecting earth's climate and or being "out of the ordinary". There is no crisis. "If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature." I don't have to deny it. What you have engaged in is known as the Common Cause Fallacy or False Cause: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... This one has the graphs: http://goo.gl... Then Mr. Merrill provides several "proofs" by listing statements from some of the organizations that have bought in to the AGW Alarmism. Lets look at the other side and what they say: A few members of organizations like the AMS have left over the AMS's stand on AGW: http://goo.gl... A poll taken on Meteorologists show them to be skeptics: http://goo.gl... And if you don't "toe the line", you have your credentials threatened: http://goo.gl... "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." (2006) -- James Lovelock, British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion." http://goo.gl... "For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory... Recent experience with the UN"s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too." -- Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, author, "Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun)", co-authored with noted geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian L"ning. http://goo.gl... "Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!" " NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace http://goo.gl... "Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself " Climate is beyond our power to control"Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can"t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone"s permission or explaining itself." " Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. http://goo.gl... "Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences"AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." " Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lu"s Lino, -- "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency." 2009. "[The science] community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what "science" has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." " Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and he published a paper in August 2009 titled "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field." "[The global warming establishment] has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." " Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University "There is a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink" They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging... They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them... The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics"the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy." -- Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech http://goo.gl... "In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about." -- Richard Lindzen, Former UN IPCC Lead Author http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...

  • CON

    Pro thinks that if you spend money towards climate, it...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    Pro thinks that if you spend money towards climate, it will solve the issue. There is one BIG thing Pro is not thinking of. If we somehow get the entire world to lay down their arms then that is just dandy. However, that will happen. We need to protect ourself. Dropping the military budget will only make things worse. Not only that but it would be slowing down the thing that might happen anyway. Pro then lists some Al Gore qoutes, which he doesn't build on. Miltary is more useful then climate change.

  • PRO

    Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)-...

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

    First, I ask my opponent to refrain from wild ad hominem. CO2 has gone up. Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- https://Here's a nice NASA graph(scroll down a tiny bit)- https://climate.nasa.gov...; The spike coincides with the popularization of cars, especially in the US, as the wartime production economy steamrolled on into an age of peace and excess. These factors meant we as humans began putting out CO2 like nobody's The Earth has gotten hotter NASA once again has a relevant graph: https://climate.nasa.gov... These two are correlated Here, our good friend NOAA helps out, with their interactive climate dashboard(you'll have to scroll down past a few articles): https://www.climate.gov...; And no, the NOAA isn't fake: https://www.snopes.com...; Your ad hominems also reminded me of this: https://imgur.com...