args

Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

Pro: No Matter what the final outcome of this debate may be, I thank you for an extremely well-structured debate based upon one of today's most pressing questions. Thank you for the honor of allowing me to present the Con Position. Pro has stated he is having trouble figuring out what I was claiming with respect to the contentions. I understand his confusion since I meant to say I was refuting his claims of results that most likely would result. I apologize for the error and will be more careful in the future. Too bad the spell checker cannot flag those kind of errors. Pro contends that by posting on the internet the data supporting the publication of findings by a particular scientist or group, that the raw historical data be included in the posting along with the software used to analyze and plot that data, be included. On the surface this sounds good but here is the problem: If a group was to come across a small data set that refuted their other findings, but that that data was obtained in an unsatisfactory manner (such as some measurements being taken during an unusually warm period due to other than usual conditions, they would have to show the erroneous data and explain it omission in the overall results. Here is where the pundits come in: I can hear it now, "They just threw out data they didn't like!...This proves their entire theory is wrong and it is probably been cooked to get more tax money!" In debate we call that a Biased Sample Fallacy coupled with the Red Herring Fallacy. In debate, we have the opportunity to point these fallacies out and moving on, letting the judges decide. In real life, once the pundits latch on to something they think they can run with, in this case, not the "missing data" but the tax money. Scientists can counter the arguments all they want, but the anti's will still be the loudest. It is for this reason the raw data and the process of analysis (which may include the non-consideration of some data) being presented to the public would be counter-productive, thus confirming Con's position. I said I wouldn't get into the debate of global climate change per se so I will admit that the same scenario could be played out to the opposite side but the result would be the same...degenerating the vital investigation into this question into a debate of semantics rather than allowing the truth to emerge. Regardless of which side one is on, it is the truth should be the goal, not just an individual's (or a political party's or special interest group's)preset agenda. This whole question has become a political football, no longer a scientific investigation into a very important subject. Pro has, in fact, admitted that [quote]" There is no concern that unqualified people in the general public will critique climate research software. The general public cannot comprehend it."[end quote] therefore solidifying Con's position that there is no good reason to release the data he suggest to the public, but to restrict it's exposure to qualified scientists, other than to allow non-professionals, with no prestigious standing at risk, to cherry-pick data to foist upon the unsuspecting and admittedly gullible public as the absolute truth. This alone, should be enough to vote in favor of Con. Pro contends that the "hockey stick graph" contained a "major error" that caused it removal from the 2007 IPCC report. However, it was not the major error but the removal of the questionable data was portrayed by certain highly placed politicians who were admittedly opposed to any suggestion that global warming could be a real occurrence. http://en.wikipedia.org... The fact that the "Medieval Warming" and the "Little Ice Age" were left out due to the suspect nature of the data and the relatively slow temperature rise shown by even the suspected data over several hundreds of years compared to the comparatively rapid rise over less than one hundred years, did not discourage the critics of the issue one bit, with the pundits again exclaiming how the figures were deliberately falsified to simply satisfy some unknown benefactor holding the enormous purse strings of the federal budget. http://www.windows.ucar.edu... Pro has said that all the data should be produced "for all to see, without a bunch of nonsense obstacles." But then, since the public wouldn't comprehend it, it would still become, not a scientific question but a political football with each side pointing fingers and claiming the other guy was wrong and the "unqualified people in the general public" would be the ones left to make the decision of which side was "right." Pro's contentions have all been supported by questionable and debatable outcomes based on illegal and unethical "evidence" that has been sensationalized to create an adversarial atmosphere surrounding the entire field of research. It is not my contention that either side is correct - just that the public exposure of esoteric (at least among the general public) methods of analysis is counter-productive to determining the truth behind the science. Therefore, Con refutes the resolution as written.

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

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will start by getting some facts on the table. The United States is a country on Earth. http://www.answers.com... The world temperature has supposedly gone up about 1 degree in the last 150 years. http://www.epa.gov... The human population of Earth is over 6 billion. http://www.infoplease.com... The human population of China is over 1.3 billion. http://geography.about.com... The human population of the United States is over 300 million. http://factfinder.census.gov... The average "carbon footprint" for a U.S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com... There are about 100 million american housholds. http://www.foxnews.com... The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. http://www.foxnews.com... China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. http://outside.away.com... The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. http://outside.away.com... From these facts, we can draw three conclusions. 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this. 2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur. 3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on The human population of the United States is over 300 million. http://factfinder.census.gov... The average "carbon footprint" for a U.S. household is 19 metric tons of CO2. http://www.foxnews.com... There are about 100 million american housholds. http://www.foxnews.com... The average american household adds 0.0000000000148 degrees Fahrenheit to the global average temperature. http://www.foxnews.com... China has a smaller carbon footprint than the U. S. http://outside.away.com... The U. S. is responsible for 27% of the global carbon footprint. http://outside.away.com... From these facts, we can draw three conclusions. 1. In 150 years, the temperature has gone up 1 degree. The U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of this. 2. Even if the United States produced no carbon footprint, about three-quarters of global warming would still occur. 3. If the United States produced no carbon footprint, then there would not be a significant effect on climate. The basic calculations are as follows: 150 years=1 degree 50 years=one-third of a degree 50 years (just U. S.)=one-twelveth of a degree The definition of "a significant effect" has been established as "atleast a quarter of a degree in fifty years". However, even if the U.S. were to have no "footprint", the global climate trend would decrease by 1/12 degree. Further, Obama's plan would "reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." http://my.barackobama.com... So, the emissions would not even be completely eliminated, but reduced by 80 percent. Therefore, assuming the Obama plan even works, the current warming trend would be reduced by 1/15 degree. The debate is already won. Basic math discredits that the U.S. adopting Obama's Cap and Trade plan will have a significant effect on climate. I thank my opponent for this debate.

its Bernie or bust, We are suck of moderates, WE WANT REAL CHANGE

I like Bernie, Right now it he's the most likely to win the primary and in the general election I would vote for him over Trump a hundred times over. However, The idea that if Bernie doesn't win your not gonna vote for the democratic candidate is almost as bad as just straight up voting for Trump. Any Democrat would be better that Trump on immigration, Women's issues, Race issues, Healthcare, Foreign relations, Climate change (probably the single greatest threat facing mankind and one Trump said was a "hoax made up by China"), And would at least allow us to get another democrat supreme court judge, Something that is incredibly important when it comes to the path this country will be going towards in the coming years, Especially since Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be alive for much longer. To say it's Bernie or Bust is basically just admitting your an idealogue who doesn't actually care about the actual tangible results or outcomes of policy that will effect million of American's, And that all you actually care about is whether or not your guy gets in as if we were on sports teams.

Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Use The Military has to do with on-the-spot situations that very well affect the state of the US. However climate, as good as it should be treated should not suck up all the tax-payers money because in the scale you are talking about would require regulation and would damage the economy because you are basically fighting the large businesses that are in America. I leave this for now. Your turn Pro!

DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

I will first refute my opponents arguements then move on to my own. 1. Samples taken from GW Exists page. The main reason that we have it as GW Exists is because not even 20 years ago we were concerned with Global Cooling and going back into another Ice Age and as a matter of fact we are beginning to cool with global cooling not heat up. Entering a cooling period RedOrbit 2009 (“Is The Earth Entering A Cooling Cycle?”, http://www.redorbit.com...) On the scientific research front, most news headlines tend to be aimed at showing how global temperatures are on a steady upward climb, but one report published last week appears to reveal that those upward trends may not be entirely accurate.¶ In an October 9 BBC News story, climate correspondent Paul Hudson noted that the warmest year on record was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.¶ The story goes on to state that no climate increase has been measured over the past 11 years, although emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise.¶The BBC story cited experts who claim that although the world has gone through decades of rapid warmth during the 20th Century, the earth operates on natural climate cycles, which man has no control over.¶ Additionally, experts have long debated whether the spikes in warming have been attributed to an increase in the Sun’s energy and that warming causes a rise in carbon dioxide levels, rather than the other way around. For some scientists, there is the lingering possibility that the earth could be entering a period of global cooling, rather than the widely sensationalized warming trend.¶BBC News cited a study published two years ago by the Royal Society. So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it. 2. It's too difficult to change things. During this past summer Koopin had changed the Big Issues, but it took over 3 months! The reason why is that it requires the votes inorder to pass. It must pass through several stages inorder to become a big Issue. 1. Must be nominated by a DDO member, 2. Must gain enough votes, (this varries depending on how many issues get nominated in the 1st step by DDO) 3. Must be approved by Juggle (Juggle owns the site and they won't allow changes to their site that they don't approve of). Plus there are things that are better to possibly put there like Does God Exists, Do Aliens Exists, etc...