Global warming should not be taught as a fact in schools
Debate Rounds (3)
Arctic ice has improved by 50 percent since 2012 despite the so called "global warming" effect. Moreover, when even today's weather instruments and predictions are flawed, how can we rely on the data of the instruments of 1900's to detect climate change? Damage to the ozone layer only brings in more radiation, not heat. The Ozone layer is not a solid net that cools the Earth. The most common greenhouse gas is not co2, but water vapour. If global warming really was that serious, then why winters haven't been shortened? Why the heat doesn't stay after the Sun goes down? Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap heat, aren't they? Furthermore, I would like to quote from my source friends of science "CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result." Lastly, when we breath out, why does our breath cools so fast as the distance increases? Isn't co2 expelled supposed to be trap heat and I be breathing out steam on a summer's day?
Furthermore, students should have the right to express and moreover form their opinions themselves based on the data they find trustworthy, not because the teacher says so.
peterowsky forfeited this round.
Okay, let's start off. The levels of arctic ice have improved by 50 percent since 2012. That's correct! According to Walt Meier, a research scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center argues that the warming of climate around the globe changes weather patterns, and the weather patterns bring cooler air in certain areas. As an example, Walt Meier points towards the Antarctic Peninsula, where the temperatures are warming and the sea to the west of it experiences shrinking ice levels. Beyond that sea, (the Bellingshausen Sea) lies the Ross Sea, which is where ice growth is a frequent occurrence. The low-pressure system down by the Antarctic peninsula permits cold, cool wind to blow down towards Ross Sea while warmer winds are reserved for the Bellingshausen Sea. The system however would be unreliable in an event of further warming, as the 'cool' win around Ross Sea would warm up as well, leading to reversal of freezing. There is no reason why a similar situation could not be occurring in the Arctic, leading to the 50% growth you've pointed out. Finally, as a senior scientist Claire Parkinson stated: "It's really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected " it would be amazing if everything did."
Although today's and the past's weather instruments are definitely not top notch, that doesn't make them entirely unreliable. As technology advances, so do the means of measuring temperature and climate changes.
The source from Forbes is nothing more than an opinion (the small writing below the writer's profile states that "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own"); an opinion from a viciously anti-environmentalist Alex Epstein. Rather than making unbiased, pro/con discussions, he writes blogs about all the evils of green energy and the Obama administration. Hardly a valid source. You can find a refutation to it in source 2.
According to Doran and Kendell Zimmerman, from their 2009 research regarding consensus on climate change, out of 3146 respondents (over 90% of which held a P.h.D and 7% a Masters' Degree), 90% have agreed that global temperatures have generally risen when compared to pre-1800 levels. Of 79 individuals which focus on climate change, 76 agreed that the temperatures have risen (the answers available were "Risen", "Fallen" or "Remained relatively constant". It's entirely possible that the 3 which have not answered yes, answered "Remained relatively constant"). Furthermore, when asked whether or not human activity is a major factor responsible for climate change, 77 (97%) out of 79 climate change scientists agreed that it is (which is where the '97%' figure comes from). Judging from this, I can see where I made my mistake: my wording might have been interpreted as a rather embellished belief that 97% of all scientists everywhere around the world claim that Global Warming exists and poses a threat. In that case, I'd like to reword myself: 97% of climate-change-focused scientists have agreed that humans have a significant impact on climate change, in a 2009 census. Taking into consideration the simplicity of the questions, the study is very reliable; the range of answers makes it valid. Representativeness is questionable.
"If global warming really was that serious, then why winters haven't been shortened? Why the heat doesn't stay after the Sun goes down?" This reminds me of that one time a Republican brought a snowball into the senate to prove that global warming doesn't exist. Global Warming will take decades, maybe even centuries. Over the past 200 years of industrialisation, humanity caused enough damage for temperature rises to be deemed a serious threat to our future. The world does not see any slow-down of exploitation of non-renewable sources, especially with the recent crash of oil prices.
The majority of air we inhale is hydrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide (in that order). The majority of air we exhale is hydrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide (also in that order). We do not use up all of the oxygen we inhale at any one point, some of it enters our blood and travels to where it's needed, while some carbon dioxide brought back by blood is exhaled.
According to source 3, the Friends of Science organisation is known to have been funded by anonymous donors from oil industry, and many of their key personnel constitutes from oil geologists and oil-industry-related people. Once again, that does not at all seem all that unbiased; the sources my opponent uses are either mere opinions or biased organisations.
Yes. Students should have the right to express their opinions, which is what they do. That's why we have climatologists which actually go out to do research on the topic: to find proof for Global Warming, of which there is a large number, to figure out what will it lead to in the next fifty, hundred years, and to figure out how to prevent it, slow it down or prepare for it.
Once again, a vast majority of credible sources point towards Global Warming being a fact. It's a severe issue which has to be approached with seriousness. Whether or not it is real - and in all probability it is - it should be taught as a fact in order to ensure that our youngest generations, the legacy of humanity as it is right now, are prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure safety and thriving of our planet in the centuries to come. By all means, students should be welcome to do their own research, even encouraged to do so, but as of June 2016, when climatologists tend to agree that Global Warming is a fact and deniers are blinded by the reflections from their own tin-foil hats, telling a teenager or a child to "find out for yourself" is like asking them to see if a snowball melts when brought into a warm room.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.