args

Man made climate change is a myth

Artificial consensus

The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?

CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

I'm not sure how to title this CMV, but I'm starting to think that it will be impossible to stop climate change from doing too much damage, from flooding low-height densely populated areas, from making deserts (more) uninhabitable. There are too many compromises to make in order to stop the damage from being too big but also to prevent the suffering of some people. 1- Airplanes On one hand, airplanes cause a lot of pollution because of the fuel. Kerosene is the only fuel available that is cheap, energy-dense and light to power a flying beast of metal. Batteries are too heavy and aren't energy-dense enough for that. It's almost as if human beings aren't supposed to fly. The heaviest extant flying animal has an average weight of less than 20 kg. Pterosaurs existed, yes, but they are extinct and I think they'd have a hard time flying in our current atmosphere with too little oxygen. On the other hand, there are some some places that are too geographically isolated for roads or train tracks. Yes, they are accessible by water vessels, but water-based transportation is too slow, especially for those communities who can't be self-sufficient. 2- The Amazon rainforest On one hand, preserving it is important. Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of its weather regulation capabilities. On the other hand, the Amazon is no Antarctica, it has people living in it, it has cities in it. They need infrastructure that can't be built because of extreme environmental regulations. Yes, there's a risk of the roads and train tracks (again, water travel is slow, and not everything can be transported via ships) causing even more deforestation in their surroundings, but the Brazilian north is poor for a reason. 3- Energy Renewable energies still can't supply the energy demand on their own and nuclear stations take too long to get ready and got their reputation destroyed by Fukushima and Chernobyl (there's also the issue of the disposal of the nuclear waste, those take literally millennia to become safe). I fear that, even with the increase of capabilities, renewables still couldn't supply because the demand also increased. 4- Food On one hand, agriculture and livestock (especially the latter) take up too much space that could be used for nature preservation and for planting trees to suck up the excessive carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there are people living in places that can't support intense agriculture because the soil sucks and/or because their biome is too important (*cough* Amazon *cough*). Also, being able to follow a vegan diet is a privilege. There are the people whose lifestyle require a lot of protein, people recovering from eating disorders (they can't have a diet that is too restrictive), autistic people who only eat a very specific diet (and they are often repulsed by vegetables), people who simply can't give up meat because they like it too much, among other groups who can't go vegan.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time. I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over. Thank you for debating!

Human caused climate change is nonsense

You have assumed that CO2 is a dangerous substance which needs to be reduced. First mistake. CO2 is not a dangerous substance. Plants use CO2 to grow. When a plant grows, Most of its weight and bulk comes from CO2. The more CO2 that you pump into the atmosphere the faster and more vigorously plants will grow in response. Thus, CO2 is necessary and vital to create and mature plant growth which in turn gives us more food to eat. Thus, It is part of the oxygen, Water and CO2 cycle of life. It's CO2 in the lungs that tells a person to breathe. If you didn't get any CO2 into your lungs your brain wouldn't give you a signal to breathe. Properties of CO2 CO2 has similar properties to glass. When CO2 has reached it's saturation point it can no longer reflect infra red light. It's saturation point is about 80 parts per million. Thus, Any additional CO2 will have zero effect on increasing global temperatures. Global temperature. The global temperature isn't capable of being effected by humans due to the mathematical ratio differential between the size of the Earth and the total mass weight of humans and their machines. The size differential is trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions to one. Thus, Humanity represents the equivalent of about 3 grains of sand on a 100 kilometre beach. Thus, It is quite laughable that humanity thinks that they can make a difference to global temperatures.

Unethical to change planet w/o universal approval

Richard Somerville, a climate researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California: "I should say right up front, I am not at all in favour of geoengineering. I think it's inherently unethical. I don't see how you decide on the basis of all humanity how to change the planet."[