args

PRO

• PRO

  Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is both real and a serious issue

  My first source was just an example of the structure that should be used and is not part of my argument. You state that displacement will maintain the water levels. Water in its solid form is more dense than its liquid state. Therefore it takes up less space and by melting the ice caps the same amount of water would take up more room. Also there is a lot of the ice that is above sea level, the ice on top would melt and go into the ocean which increases the sea level. Get a graduated cylinder, fill it with water, and place a buoyant ball in. Measure the volume line of the cylinder, now push the ball entirely into the water and measure it again. You will notice that the volume line will increase. The same thing will happen with the ice melting into the ocean. You state that humans will raise the temperature by a couple of degrees. That has an incredible impact. In fact, that is what climate change believers are worried about. This couple of degrees will change the world and reduce the health of the biosphere.(http://www.motherjones.com...) The Industrial Revolution changed lives drastically, factories began to mass produce products, new tools allowed less farmers to create more food, and wealth inequality grew. This resulted in accelerated population growth and living condition improvements. A side effect was the demand for energy to power factories, trains, planes, ships, and to create electricity. Whether it was wood, coal, or oil, these energy sources when burned would release emissions that have been buried in the ground for millions of years. Not much emission comes from these sources, but in over 200 years we have increased the carbon footprint of the planet by 38%(1). This is increasing the global temperature which is resulting in: melting of the polar caps, ecosystem destruction, and is destroying our biosphere. Due to the excessive use of these energy sources we are also destroying the environment. Dumping trash and waste into the ocean and rivers of the world. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is creating a dangerous cycle. Carbon dioxide traps heat from the sun and causes higher temperatures. Polar ice caps reflect huge amounts of sunlight, and because of the increased temperatures these caps are slowly melting away causing even more heat to stay in the Earth. Beneath the polar caps is home to millions of pounds of carbon dioxide that will be released furthering this cycle. This process is exponential and is almost impossible to restore back to its original state with current technology. With the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising, trillions of dollars in economies would be at jeopardy. Cities like New York, Singapore, Shanghai, Tokyo, would be destroyed. These changes would also displace billions of people in the process(2). Life is very fragile for multi-celled organisms, a change in the organism's niche will wipe them out. This is because they are well adapted to the environment which makes them very dependent on it. Deserts are expanding, ocean reefs are disappearing, and forests are vanishing(3). These ecosystems are home to millions of different species and the rate of extinction is rising at an alarming rate(4). Food webs and season cycles are being disrupted which are incredibly important to the system. Temperature increases are affecting sea level and ocean temperature. This in turn is wrecking the ocean currents that deliver heat evenly and quickly all over the world as well as sustain billions of ocean organisms. Couldn't it be argued that those people against climate change are trying to further themselves. Oil and coal businesses would lose immense profits or go bankrupt if governments started to crack down heavily on the issue. Many government and educational sites are posting verifiable data on climate change.(1)http://climate.nasa.gov...(2)http://www.nationalgeographic.com...(3)https://www.epa.gov...(4)http://www.pbs.org... You have claimed that there was higher C02 concentrations during the Ordovician period and that flora and fauna was incredible. What soon followed suit was the largest mass extinction ever. The climate changed rapidly and the organisms that were best fit died off. This is why climate change is such a big deal. Yes, carbon emissions were much higher, however the suns solar output was incredibly low along with much larger ice caps to deflect more sunlight. In comparison, today we have a very high solar output and much smaller polar caps. Recent studies on the Ordovician period actually show that the carbon concentration was not as incredible as claimed (5). You brought in that people used to believe the world was flat. That is a common myth(6). The Earth is an oval and there are immense amounts of evidence to prove it. Yet people today still believe the Earth is flat(7). (5) https://skepticalscience.com... (6)https://en.wikipedia.org...# (7)https://theflatearthsociety.org...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-both-real-and-a-serious-issue/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 33.15

    climate: 15.58

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 6.36 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.33)

    sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)

    change: 10.98

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)

    real: 6.59

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.65)
• PRO

  Round 2: Create argument and rebut. ... I believe in...

  Show full argument

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

  Round 1: Accept challenge and give 1 paragraph intro. Round 2: Create argument and rebut. Round 3: Add to argument and rebut. Round 4: Rebut, add to argument, and make 1 paragraph closing. I believe in the fact of Round 2: Create argument and rebut. Round 3: Add to argument and rebut. Round 4: Rebut, add to argument, and make 1 paragraph closing. I believe in the fact of climate change, I believe in climate change due to 99.5% (the actual stat according to many many sources, do a basic Google search) of all scientists believing in it. I believe in man made climate change due to 97% of scientists believing in it (according to many sources including the US Gov and UN). I believe in climate change being a problem as the scientific consensus does too, and I believe we can take action as if we are a major cause of it, we can stop doing what we are doing to cause it.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans-and-can-should-be-stopped/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 33.07

    climate: 16.66

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 1.27 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 10.84

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.71 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.13)

    real: 5.56

    conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 2.02)
• PRO

  2] Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

  Due to many problems posting arguments for the last debate, Citrakayah and I have decided to restart the debate in order to iron out the structural problems of this debate and because the computer deleted my argument. I extend my opponent the best of luck. Full Resolution Climate change is not an imminent danger to the general wellbeing of this planet. I will be arguing for this resolution. BoP is shared. Definitions Climate Change: "...a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years."[1] Imminent: "Liable to happen soon; impending ."[2] Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or loss; risk."[3] Basically, the resolution is that climate change will not significantly damage the earth in the next century or two. Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.91

    climate: 19.18

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 7.82 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.63)

    sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.03)

    change: 13.63

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.49 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.88)
• PRO

  One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations...

  Show full argument

  climate change is fake

  It's real Alright, here's the big question. How do we prove this argument true or false? Let's look at the facts. One, multiple scientist from world-renowned organizations such as National Geographic and NASA have given provable theories about this topic. Also, there is no corruption involved with a person understanding the fact that the chemicals we burn every day of our lives are killing us. Our planet is not infinite, it's resources will eventually dry up, and the human race will overpopulate the planet without the proper measures. The fact we know and understand this crisis has nothing to do with our morality and our honesty. My opponent in this debate is straying to far into biased waters, and if he's not careful, he'll get swallowed up by the giant shark called FAILURE. Climate Change exists, and it IS killing our planet.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/climate-change-is-fake/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.89

    climate: 17.14

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)

    change: 12.26

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)

    real: 3.49

    premises: 3.16 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.79)
• PRO

  He resigned because he considers that climate change...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc.) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc.) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc.). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] http://www.newsweek.com... [5] http://www.geocraft.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.85

    climate: 20.28

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 7.45 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.55)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 12.50

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
• PRO

  Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away...

  Show full argument

  Nuclear energy undermines renewable solutions to climate change

  "The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "going nuclear would squeeze out renewables. Any investment put in nuclear is investment taken away from renewable energy, the proven climate change solution. Nuclear energy distracts governments from taking the real global action necessary to tackle climate change and meet people’s energy needs."

  • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Nuclear_energy
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.78

    climate: 17.27

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.10 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.85)

    change: 11.67

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.85)

    real: 3.84

    premises: 3.61 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.38)

    sourceText: 0.23 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.25)
• PRO

  Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature...

  Show full argument

  Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

  Please stick to only the man-made part of this argument. I am not denying the world is heating or any possible effects of that. I am saying that man does not cause it. Also, quoting a consensus is NOT science. I want to hear your argument, not some random scientists. Science is based off of hard facts and evidence to support claims, not a consensus of random scientists whether they studied climate or not. Here are my reasons: 1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate: Many people I have met say, "Man made global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof." 2.The computer models don"t work The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...... 3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now. 4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com...... Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time. 5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now: Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com...... More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades. The political side of things: This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject. The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey. Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way: https://www.youtube.com...... The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today. The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...... The final proof: And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real: It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Man-Made-Climate-Change-Is-Fake/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.61

    climate: 18.23

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.62)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 11.17

    conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 2.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.01)

    real: 3.21

    premises: 2.88 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.10)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.79)
• PRO

  The peer review system is not fair, Democratic,...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is a fraud

  Quote - You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. Reply - The term 'greenhouse gas' is misleading. The Earth doesn't act like a greenhouse but is more like a thermostat. Thus, The whole climate disaster scenario is based on many false assumptions. Quote - The claim that every climate scientist is corrupt is so sweeping as to be completely unfounded. There are thousands of climate scientists all over the world; you can't expect every one of them to be bankrolled by special interests or be lying about their science to the public. You might, However, Expect a small minority to be corrupt, Which is what we see in the few who claim anthropogenic climate change is not happening, Who are often funded by fossil fuels or not scientists qualified in the fields they are discussing. Some things you need to know about the science world. 1. The science profession is a very frivolous profession and it is one that the community doesn't need most of the time. The science community has to find ways to make themselves more important and necessary to the community. Thus, They make up artificial disasters from which they can save us poor fools. By creating artificial disasters, Like climate change and Corona Virus attacks, The science community can increase it's social standing and importance. 2. The science community is a kind of mafia organisation which uses bribery, Extortion, Fraud, Blackmail, And deception as it's main tools of trade. 3. The science community is not accountable to anybody because they are a kind of dictatorship which took control of all the global leaders a long time ago and have maintained control ever since. 4. The peer review system is not fair, Democratic, Responsible, Careful and has no sense of morality. The peer review system has been secretly tested many times and it has been found that 90 % of errors are never found. Thus, The peer review system is just a corrupt and bureaucratic waste of time and money. Quote - My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Reply - You have just repeated the same statement as last time. You can't just say that "this is not the case". You must prove that it is not the case using logic and examples. Note - To win this point you must prove that nuclear explosions have caused the climate to change. If you don't have any evidence of this, Then you shouldn't have stated it. Quote - Given that over a million people have died of the corona virus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. Reply - It is only assumed that a million people have died due to the Corona Virus. I haven't seen any evidence to prove that this is the case. If you study the number of deaths from disease in general, You will find that no more people have died from disease this year than what have died from disease last year. Thus, It is just a numbers game and a game of changing disease names to suit the hidden agendas. Note - Have you once heard on the media anything about mortality rates this year verses mortality rates last year? Answer - No you haven't because they don't want you to know that nothing has changed in relation to mortality rates. Note - Decreasing mortality rates is the only thing that can tell you if there is a pandemic or isn't there a pandemic. Quote - The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. Reply - In order to determine if humans are to blame for climate change we have to imagine a world without a sun first. This is just a typical logic exercise and method of determining the cause of something. You take away the possible causative agents one by one and see what happens. Obviously, Humans would not be able to add one or two degrees to the Earth's temperature in this case. Thus, We can safely eliminate humans as being the cause of global warming. Quote - Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. Reply - I can see that you have a sever case of confirmation bias. Sorry, Water vapour cools the Earth, It doesn't warm it. Just image yourself on a blisteringly hot summers day and some big dark clouds come over. Does the temperature (a) Get hotter when the clouds are overhead or (b) Does it get cooler when the big dark clouds come overhead?

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.48

    climate: 18.59

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 7.17 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.50)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 12.28

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.11 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)

    real: 1.61

    premises: 1.34 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.50)
• PRO

  There is nobody more qualified then this group of people....

  Show full argument

  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...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.45

    climate: 19.50

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.12 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.69)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 12.82

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 3.66 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
• PRO

  Debate format- R1: acceptance(NO ARGUMENTS) R2: Opening...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  Climate Change-The global rise in temperatures, As well as other effects, Emerging from the manmade release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Debate format- R1: acceptance(NO ARGUMENTS) R2: Opening statements(you cannot respond, You may only present your points. ) R3: Do whatever you want R4: Do whatever you want R5: Closing statements(NO NEW ARGUMENTS) I hope this debate invite reaches you quickly. Back in 2017 I actually debated you on this very subject, And even though I won, I felt like I left something on the table, As I was an inexperienced debater. I look forward to engaging you in NOBLE INTELLECTUAL FISTICUFFS OF LOGIC.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/10/
  • score

    BM25 score: 32.38

    climate: 18.59

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.06)

    change: 13.49

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)