Debate Rounds (4)
Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is primarily influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity.
I will take the pro side.
The BOP lies on both sides.
First round is acceptance only.
Second round is construction only.
No new arguments may be made in the final round.
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate.
Point A: Climate shift is real
Sub point 1: Scientific consensus
"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century."
Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity
Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus
"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3)
"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5)
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6)
Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus.
Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity
"The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2)
"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7)
Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift.
Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity.
Global climate change leads to:
-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods
-Endangered wildlife habitats
-Rising sea levels
-Greater damage from extreme storms
-More heat-related illness and disease
Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster
"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2)
"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8)
With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)
Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow.
Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding
"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2)
"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2)
As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level.
Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life.
Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment.
There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile.
"Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2)
"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2)
"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:
-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.
-Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.
-Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.
-Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.
-Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11)
Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)
There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift.
"Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says 'the scientist say its right, so its right.'"
Actually what I'm saying is that scientists have proven sufficiently that it's real, so it is real.
As for the rest of my opponents argument, it might be compelling to consider if it was confirmed by any evidence. Since my opponent cited no sources, we can only assume that this is only from his personal knowledge and expertise.
A) my overwhelming bulk of sources overrides this.
B) My opponent is not an environmental scientist, and even if he was, his opinion would be drowned by the 95% consensus
Furthermore, my opponents points regarding the shift being "normal" should be cross referenced with my points regarding the scientific consensus that it is not "normal."
JackFritschy forfeited this round.
Forward all points.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - "JackFritschy forfeited this round." S&G - tied, but PRO did better formatting. Arguments - Pro was consistent and thorough Sources - Pro again. I disagree with pro on the contention that it is man caused. Pro put forward a much better debate. Climate always changes. Climate changed long before man was on the planet. The whole concept of Paleoclimatology suggests that most climate change in the pas has not been man made. It is hubris to think we have suddenly become a major player in the universe.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.