args

The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

I thank my opponent for a decent rebuttal. First, we are not assuming that the Obama plan will even work. It may, or it may not. My statisctic, not the debate, assumed that the Obama plan actually worked. W can further debate whether or not the plan will work or not. The debate, however, based on both people's calculations, establishes that nature automatically puts out a climate change of 0. Further, this debate does not entail the entire Obama plan for Climate Change, which also may or may not work, but just the U. S. adopting his Cap and Trade program. Therefore, I must only disprove that the U.S. adopting Cap and Trade will (by itself) result in a significant effect on climate (.25 degrees Fahrenheit). The rest of Obama's plan (involving the U.N.) is not part of Obama's Cap and Trade plan. Assuming that the Obama plan does not stop at 2050, then, yes, we can assume that Obama will continue to constrict the United States' carbon footprint to 2.4% of what it is now. This is the overall effect of Obama's Cap and Trade program. For these reasons, my opponent's calculations do not apply. 1. I will redo my calculations: 1.35 degrees warming=150 years 50 years= .45 degrees warming 27 percent U. S. x .45 degress warming=0.27 x 0.45= 0.1215 U.S. degrees warming contribution 0.1215 U.S. degrees warming x 2.4 percent left by 2059=0.1215 x .024 = 0.002916 U.S. contribution after 50 years 0.1215 current contribution - 0.002916 remaining contribution=0.118584 warming difference Therefore, after 50 years, even with my oppoenent's contribution to the statisctics, even making the grand assumption that it will work, Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. 2. Further, Cap and Trade will not even work to the degree that Obama anticipates it will. Companies would just pay a high amount of money and eventually die out. This would result in power crisis (as the Coal Industry dies out), a transportation crisis (as the Oil refining industry dies out), etc. This is impractical. Power and refined oil would be imported, and thus produced in other countries, especially ones that aren't in the U.N. From this, we know that the other countries would just end up producing everything that was produced domestically, and no emmissions would be lessened overall. In the meanwhile, jobs go overseas. I again reassert that Cap and Trade will not have a significant effect on climate. My opponent having the U.S. annex the world does not apply to this debate.

Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

First screw you and condescending snot nosed attitude towards me in defining climate, green house gasses and the green house effect. I don't have a problem with any of those definitions they are all naturally occurring things that enable the earth to have an atmosphere. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com...... So lets see CORNELIA DEAN a columnist at the N.Y. Times who is such a crappy and incompetent reporter who so lazy that she cant even provide a source for the claim she makes in this article or even the name of the institution or names of scientists who provided the information. Let me let you in on something. You are going to have to provide peer reviewed research done by peer reviewed scientists in order to use it as a source. I have been ridiculed and chastised for not doing so and you will be to. There is no way for me to verify this information and who did the research. I will allow you to come up with another source that meets peer reviewed credentials in the next round. But for now it is a worthless source. "Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature." Please provide your source that proves there is a direct relationship between Co2 and rises in temps. "Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate "http://news.mongabay.com...... Sorry but this is a blog and is worthless as a source. It is not peer reviewed. "The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen." Again, what is your source. "Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insulation power".http://www.terranature.org...... Another blog, again a worthless source. "We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature". What is your source. "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". This is an opinion "Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back." This is an opinion Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates). Please provide source "Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation." I don't have a problem with this statement although a "die hard enviromentalist" being for nuclear energy sounds like an oxymorn to me. "Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable." When you provide peer reviewede sources where indicated I will glady respond to each and every one. You must at the very least provide the scientits name or names so I can veryfy who they are and what their credtials are. I'm sorry but what's exspected of me should also be expected of you. I have had to many debates on this subject and have learned my lesson, now it's your turn.

Man made climate change is a myth

The science is open

Man made climate change is a myth

Science is self correcting