args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

If you wanted a serious debate then you would not have ignored my entire argument. So I guess since you are not paying attention to my arguments I will just have to disprove yours instead of adding to my own. You firstly say that, "The temperature has increased .87 Celsius." This is true, but you forgot to mention that the warming period that caused this rise started in the 1700's before the industrial revolution. In addition to this, the world has been naturally warming for the last 20,000 years. You ignored large amounts of scientific data in your argument and made a claim that I agree with. The world IS WARMING!!! It just is not caused by man. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... According to your second argument, Co2 is at 400 ppm. This is true, but there has been no substantial warming for the last 20 years which is proof of how temperature and Co2 act independently. In addition to this, 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during the last 20 year period. This in itself disproves your claim. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In addition to this, Co2 has been at much higher levels in the past. To restate what I said above, "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 10000 ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time." There may be a clear and strong positive correlation between Co2 and temperature but this correlation has been weak compared to that of sun spots. For the majority of the 1900's sun spots correlated MORE STRONGLY to temperature then Co2 did. This means that sun spots had a bigger impact then Co2 on the temperature. Yes, I know that sun spot numbers dropped around the early 2000s but that is irrelevant because for the majority of the 1900's, when tons and tons of Co2 were released, the temperature was affected more by sun spots then it was by Co2. Another thing to point out, when sun spot numbers started to drop is when the flat line in temperature began. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... http://geoffair.net... In actual statistics, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007) http://i0.wp.com... http://inspirehep.net... https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... In conclusion, not only have you ignored the majority of my first argument, you state claims that I am not even trying to disprove. You obviously don't understand what I am trying to debate or don't know how to debate my claims. In addition to this, you gave almost no evidence to support your claims, only sources of where you got the information. If you want to have a real debate, maybe reading my arguments would help. Your welcome

Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

Ok so my opponent conceded the first 2 rounds of the debate and decided to bring a completely new contention the very last round. The problem here is that he also basically concedes that if I were to demonstrate that Trump is greedy enough to just not care about it then that's sufficient to win the debate. A quick Google search reveals an article in which Trump literally states "I am very greedy" [1] It's a well known fact that Trunp is excessively greedy, he even says it himself. He's a businessman who brags about his wealth constantly. Why not assume that he's greedy enough to do this? My opponent doesn't provide any counter evidence to his immense greed over the course of the debate and concedes that he'll go to excessive measures for more power so I suggest that this refutes his contentions. Thank you. [1] http://thehill.com...

Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

My opponent as PRO has the BOP, this shall not be negotiated. Definitions: CO2 emissions: "emissions of CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas for energy use. Carbon dioxide also enters the Atmosphere from burning wood and waste materials and from some industrial processes such as cement production. Emissions of CO2 from these sources are a relatively small part of global emissions and are not included in these statistics."[1] In other words, it is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming. ==> What we argue <== PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists). CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. In this debate I must provide a time frame. The little ice age - present. 1st round acceptance by PRO. No abusive arguments please. [1] http://www.wikiprogress.org...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

First of all, what scientists say dis irrelevant, scientists used to think that the earth is flat, and even today they are telling us that GMO's are safe, even though foreign scientists have proven time and time againthat they are in fact not safe. Yet, this is the general concensus. Second of all, in Round 2 you tried to disregard my citation that global tempartures are in fact dropping because "newsmax is a conservative news site," as if someone being a conservative automatically discredits them. So this is prettty much just an ad-hominim attack. I could say that because all your citations are highly liberal that they are false. Either way, you claim that CO2 levels are increasing, which is true, and that tempartures are increasing, which is partialy true. But you are yet to prove that these temparture increases are caused by CO2 emmissions. I could say that since 1700 the number of Pirates on the high seas have decreased while global warming has increased, therefor pirates reduce the global temparture. Also do the math, if 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2, {1} then the global temparture can only increase by 0.0013% as a result of CO2 emmissions. Mathmatically speaking, it makes no sense that such a small influence on the atmosphere can cause gobal warming. And look at this graph: It looks like the tempartures are increasing t a rapid rate, but if you accountfor the highest temparture anomaly we have is less than 1 degree celcius, and that it has developed over 76 years, then the idea of global warming being a threat to humanity is shewn to be completely absurd. {1}. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Tempartures are dropping: http://www.newsmax.com... How can the world be heating up if it is warming up? And why is Antartic Sea Ice growing? https://www.nasa.gov...