Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.
I will be arguing in favor of this issue.
First round: acceptance only
Round 5: No new arguments may be presented
If your oppnent asks for a source, it must be provided.
You may not use Fox News, MSNBC, or other biased sources.
You must cite your evidence as much as possible.
Watch this as part of C2 --->
C1: The temperature of the earth is increasing because of CO2 increase.
'An Inconvenient Truth' very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. Nonetheless, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. As Al Gore's popularity grows the issue is spiralling into a massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore's film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is "a sham". In Gore's movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However,warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, therefore a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions.
I ran out of space to type more. 4000 too low.
Yeah...I agree. 4k is definitely not enough. Sorry about that :(
Refutation to 1st paragraph:
The sun doesn't effect the seasons in a significant way, the rotations of the planets do. Pluto and Triton's global warmings may be due to the fact that they have a much longer orbit time than we do and, as their eliptical orbit brings them closer to the sun, they start to heat up.
The graudual increase of the sun's temperature would likely increase the surface temperature of the earth by much more tha 1ºC over a century. This "heating of the sun" theory also leaves the corrolation between increased temperatures and increased CO2 levels completely unexplained, and is thus an incomplete explaination for the data we have observed in relation to climate change.
To illustrate my point, here's a quote from your 6th sources "Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and 'that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,' he said.
So although the sun MAY BE getting hotter, the increase in the temperature of the sun does not adquately explain the global warming we have experienced over the last century.
Refutation to 2nd paragraph:
I will ignore your "scientists claim Global Warming a 'sham'" because your scientists do not present evidence, and they do not represent a majority of the scientific community. Nor is it likely that they possess the tools necessary to carry out experiments on the scale that would DISPROVE global waming.
"However,warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, therefore a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions."
This argument...makes little sense. Not only is it not sourced, it doesn't say that there SHOULD be a relation between CO2 levels and temperature levels. Prior to the advent of heavy industry, the earth has not experienced a bombardment of CO2 on such a scale as now, and so it makes no sense to say "Temperatures rose and 800 years later, CO2 levels rose, therefore CO2 does not cause temperature to rise." Increase in temperature could be due to many other factors, like methane emissions, or (if your sun temperature increase argument stands) the increase of the temperature of he sun, or just the general unpredictability of weather.
Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.
An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussedhow skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors.A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”
Again. 4000 too low.
There's a huge difference between some Czech poltician saying the IPCC is a political body and it actually being one. I am unconcerned about a Czech politician being convinced that global warming is a myth specially because he doesn't exactly cite any evidence, does he? And actually, I wasn't going to ask why American politicians don't think so because they do. 11 senators and 36 House members newly elected believe in the so-called "myth" of climate change (1). In addition, the "evidence" you have provided to support your claim is very inadequate since you only actually list two cases in which science skeptics have been "silenced." Furthermore, in your Oregon example, this climateologist's free speech wasn't being infringed upon, he wasn't banned from ever speaking out against
This also destroys your argument that skeptics are pariahs. If four dozen lawmakers are skeptical of science, how can you possibily claim that "science is being quashed?"
Allow me to refute your video with a simple paragraph from the LA times. (2) "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view." But, how was this study funded? Was it all a liberal hoax? No. The LA times writes: The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases."
This sounds to me like only those who almost religiously believe global warming is a myth are actually continuining the struggle, whereas those who actually conduct the science are switching sides.
The evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million (2). And over the past 4 years alone (1), the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb.
Both your video and this statement can be true. In the earth's past, the reason CO2 levels haven't driven climate change was because CO2 levels in the past were not high enough to make a significant imact
Obviously a counter-study to global warming would be predominantly funded by thoe who the myth of global warming woudl affect most. Billionaires want to stay rich, not lose customers due to a myth. That is jsut a stupid argument and irrelevant to your debate.
I have nothing more to say because you raised no valid point regarding evidence supporting global warming nor why it deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.
You merely discussed climate change itself. Not at all explaining why it's due to humans.
Thus you have not achieved your BOP and I win.
|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:||4||0|