The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
Climate Change is the end of the world
The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad
Topic space view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
-
CON -
CON Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.
Climate Change is the end of the world
Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.
-
CON If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product...
Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible
"A belief in human-caused Climate Change requires one to assert that humans are foreign entities" No, Humans can cause climate change because we introduce new variables into the climate. "If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product of the Earth, It means the Earth is causing Climate Change since the Earth is a prerequisite to humanity" Humans created things like plastic and chemicals which put a hole in the ozone layer. This wouldn't have happened without humans. Therefore, Humans have cause climate change. Whether or not we're a natural product from the Earth has no bearing on this. "If you argue that humans are the Cause of Climate Change, You have to hold the belief that humans are an unnatural, Foreign, And parasitic force in the Universe" Explain how, Don't just assert. For example, If I murdered you and your whole family - you'd have to say the Earth did it unless I'm somehow a foreign entity of the Earth and universe itself? "If we are a natural result of Earthly evolution, Our presence here (including our intelligence and ability to develop technology) is a result of that natural process, No different than those of plants and other animals. " Yes, And no one says the Earth took carbon and then spat out oxygen into the atmosphere. We say PLANTS which evolved started taking in carbon and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Your stance is you just trying to find some loophole that doesn't even exist in order to be able to say humans aren't actually causing climate change. Moreover, Even if your argument was valid, It wouldn't invalidate that humans are causing climate change. Your premise and assertions aren't even matching up.
-
PRO R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science...
Anthropogenic climate change.
R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. " Chang29 My opponent mistakes scientists skeptical and conservative perspective as doubt. Can science 100% proven man-made climate change? No, but neither can scientists 100% proven humans or reality exists. [10] Scientists work in probability. The best science can offer is that humans and reality probably exist. Just as man-made climate change probably exists. Humans desire there is a 100% chance of x happening and a 0% chance of y happening. Yet, as humans we don't have the luxury of omniscience. We cannot afford the risk of waiting for more accurate methods and technology. Given the available evidence there is about a 97% chance that man-made climate change exists, is killing people, and will continue to kill people. Now we can act upon the 97% chance, a huge risk, or act upon the 3% chance, a small risk. Then, depending upon whether climate change is correct or not four possibilities emerge. A. If we act upon the 97% chance and then later find out we were wrong, that aliens or some other extremely unlikely scenario was causing climate change, we can feel confident that we took the best course of action given our current knowledge. Little criticism is likely. B. We act upon the 97% chance and are correct in our assessments. We will be correct and know we performed the correct course of action. C. We act on the 3% chance and are incorrect, then we will be receive harsh criticism for not acting upon the best available data. D. 3% option, and we are correct. Everyone will be happy, but confused. For years to come people will question, how did you know that climate change wasn't real? Did you have a psychic ball? This is the most idealistic scenario and most unlikely. As for my opponent's accusation of an appeal to emotion fallacy, this seems like an extremely probable scenario and thus is logical. I contend that the author of the peer reviewed article was logically coherent when arguing that are grandchildren would blame us for inaction. "Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. " [11] My opponent makes a strange analogy between plastic blankets and greenhouse gases. First I've already explained that Venus has a higher concentration of Co2 and is warmer. Second, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy, using the owner of a greenhouse as the authority figure. My opponent never adequately explains why a second sheet of plastic wouldn't make the green house warmer for longer. In fact, an insulation effect would most likely cause the greenhouse to become warmer for longer. Think wearing multiple sweaters in winter. More insulation in a house makes the house stay warmer for longer. As for a scientific consensus equaling religion, my opponent's argument seems to misunderstand what a scientific consensus is. "So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer." [12] In summary, the weight of evidence for science change is so overwhelming that scientists are no longer arguing and thus at a consensus. I thank my opponent for a difficult and respectful debate. Sources 10. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com... 11. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 12. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
-
PRO I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe...
Climate change is real.
I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe in climate change.
-
CON Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are...
Climate change is real.
Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are simulations, including climate change. Bless.
-
CON Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate...
Climate change is real.
Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate change cannot exist.
-
PRO There is nobody more qualified then this group of people....
Anthropogenic global climate change.
Round two arguments Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is the main driver. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. IV. Other supporting evidence V. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Claim: A scientific consensus exists for anthropogenic climate change existence. Warrant: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." [0] Impact: A scientific consensus is an agreement upon experts in the field. Think of one hundred heart surgeons agreeing upon a heart surgery technique. Heart surgeons would have more credibility than brain surgeons, dentists, and dermatologist. Even though all four are doctors, only the heart surgeons are most qualified on the subject of heart surgery. The same is true for climate scientists. A geologist, a physicist, and a biologist are all scientists. Yet, only climate scientists are the top notch for qualifications. These are the experts of experts in the field of climate science. There is nobody more qualified then this group of people. The fact that they came to a consensus based upon multiple lines of empirical evidence, used social calibration to determine what qualified as evidence, and social diversity, from many different parts of the world gives an enormous impact. The reason why social diversity is important is to avoid groupthink which can taint the consensus. "What Is Groupthink? Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus. " [1] Here is the peer reviewed sources that confirm the scientific consensus. "J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.” W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." [0] II. Co2 is the main driver. Claim: Co2 matter because the gas absorbs infrared radiation. Warrant:"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating." [2] Impact: Co2 absorbing infrared radiation plays a crucial part in the greenhouse gas rising of Earth's temperature. Claim: Co2 makes up 81% of the greenhouse gases. Warrant: [3] Pie graph should display here. Impact: This shows that Co2 is the main driver of climate change. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. Claim: We know the Co2 is from humans due to human finger prints. Warrant: [4] Impact: These show that the Co2 is human caused as opposed to natural. IV. Other supporting evidence There is other supporting evidence, the over 400 ppm of Co2, sea level rise, global temperature rise which is now at 1.7 degree Fahrenheit, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, and many more. These all reinforce that anthropogenic climate change is happening. [5] V. Sources 0. http://climate.nasa.gov... 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. https://scied.ucar.edu... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. http://climate.nasa.gov...
-
PRO 1] While attributing individual events to climate change...
Climate change is already costing lives
Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year.[1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses. This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people.[2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear. [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf, p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013, http://phys.org/news/2013-03-human-climate-big-factor-somali.html
-
CON Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
"There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority. 'The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' [1]" - Stupidape As I had stated in my Round 3 argument, those consensuses are unreliable as they focus on a small amount of climate scientists and not all of the climate scientists as it is claimed. So you can't say 97% of climate scientists agree because 97% of people in a consensus believe in anthropogenic climate change. "The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle. 'The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.' [13]"- Stupidape The lag isn't a misunderstanding; it's evident. If you look at the graph, you can clearly see the lag of CO2 behind temperature [1]. And there have been times where CO2 and temperature went in opposite directions, which contradicts the theory of CO2 affecting temperature. "'Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.' [14]" - Stupidape If you look at the emails in full context, you can see that the scientists manipulated data to prove their research, and knew that global warming wasn't man made [2]. "The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."- Stupidape Actually, according to the website you sourced, National Review has a high rating of factual reporting [3] . "Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news." And it's also hippocritical of you to call me out on bias sources, as your arguments are chock FULL of them. Greenpeace, one of your sources, was categgorized under "Conspiracy-Psudoscience", which is for sources that "publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media." [4], noting on Greenpeace that it is a "Left wing environmental activist group. Strays from science on a few issues, otherwise not too bad." Next is Thinkprogress, which has a large liberal bias. Here's what the media fact checking website said about them: "ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Has a left wing bias in story selection and has failed some fact checks including these from Snopes."[5]. Here you are critisizing me for using a source with a right wing bias, yet you're using a source that actually FAILED factchecks. And finally, there's skeptical science. A website started by and managed by scientist John Cook, famous for, as I pointed out, manipulated information to push his political agenda. "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."[6]. As for my argument about Mars, we know enough to say that it isn't the CO2 levels. So with that in mind, and the fact that it is the closest planet to Earth, it throws the argument of man made climate change into question, for if CO2 doesn't raise Mars' temperature, then it can't raise Earth's. Nice debating you. Sources [1]- http://joannenova.com.au... [2]- http://pastebin.com... [3]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [4]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [5]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [6]-https://wattsupwiththat.com...
