Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Debate Rounds (3)
Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat.
Now onto the rest. Science is highly unreliable when in the climate sphere. Back in the 70s virtually every scientist agreed that we were going into a massive ice age, and now they have flip flopped and now think the globe is warming. Science has been doing this forever, one weakly supported claim is said so much that it basically becomes fact. Also, reliable science shows that we are coming out of a minor ige age. So this warming trend it natural. Also, the climate is constantly changing, and it has been doing so since it was formed billions of years ago. For us to think that it is controllable or that we caused it is completely unethical. My whole point is that science argues more against climate change then for it, and it's not that hard to understand, its really common sense.
Also, I understand that ice is melting and sea levels are rising. But a recent study shows that while arctic sea ice is melting antarctic sea ice is expanding. Another study shows that the sea level rise rate has decreased.
And your comment to the pope is completely irrational. The Pope's opinion is not fact, just because he is a figure head for the Catholic church doesn't mean he speaks for it. You can be Catholic and still disagree with what the pope says.
Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected, we are coming out of a little ice age and we will be fine, the Roman Warm period was warmer and they had no carbon emissions to blame it on, just because things are changing and the public didn't know enough to expect it doesn't mean we blame it on something based on the first half-baked argument we hear.
"I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to be able to debate this fascinating topic. I have only debates on this subject before in a debate talking about the 97% statistic, and for the sake of time, I will leave a link to that to explain why the 97% statistic is untrue." YatesUni
I've read the rest of my opponent's argument and I see nothing to significantly impact the resolution and thus ignore the claims, except this claim.
"Basically, science says that the warming trend is natural and expected" opponent
No, this claim is blatantly wrong. Co2 levels are way above what we would expect if man was not involved.
Overpopulation, deforestation, over fishing of the oceans, destruction of marine habitat, and destruction of the rain-forest , are all major contributing factors. Use your common sense, we cannot destroy the environment at this rate and expect no consequences.
Hurricanes are forming in places they haven't formed for at least one hundred years. The places that usually have hurricanes have more intense hurricanes. Remember hurricane Katrina? That hurricane was more intense due to global climate change. People in the middle east died in summer of 2015 due to unprecedented heat waves. We are in the middle of a mass extinction.
Global climate change is real and a threat. Thanks for the debate.
Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today. Now, Co2 levels cannot be used to blame your stated problems on. For instance, low plant growth, if anything, can be blamed on low Co2 levels, as the optimal level for plant growth is 4x higher then ours today. And our high levels of Co2, as noted by satellite imagery, are actually making the Earth greener in terms of plant growth, as plants and forests begin to regrow at noticeably fast rates.
Now, I have made legitimate claims and backed them up accordingly, and I would appreciate it if you acknowledge these claims, instead of cherry picking for one group of words to attack.
"Now on to your claim of Co2 levels. Now, the term carbon emissions is wrong, as it is not just carbon, but carbon dioxide. And every single form of fossil fuel is made of it, and all of that Co2 was once in our atmosphere. And for most of our planets existence, Co2 levels were far higher than they are today." Yatesuni
What are you talking about? Co2 levels are higher than expected. You provide no outside links on this subject.
" The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now." 
As you can see we are about to break the record for highest CO2 concentrations in human history 400 parts per million. All signs indicates the concentration will get higher and higher.
Your claim about plants growing faster is also flawed. "But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change -- namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil. " 
You dispute mainstream science and popular opinion with weak arguments. Meanwhile human population is still above 7 billion. There is no sign of electric cars becoming main stream, people still eat factory farmed beef, and so forth. Thank you for the debate.
Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate.
And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution?
And what does population have anything to do with climate change?
Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action.
Thanks for reading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SchinkBR 2 months 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:||2||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Pro uses studies and articles. Con only cites a previous debate he had and leaves their major points without sources. Points to pro. Arg: R1- Pope - Con points out that the opinion of one man isn't fact. Pro drops it. Con. 97%, both opponents agree. Tie. R2: Little ice age: Pro tries to refute this by saying it's wrong without elaborating as to why it's wrong, point to con. C02: Pro says "Overpopulation...destruction of the rain-forest , are all major contributing factors." Pro doesn't formulate an argument beyond this but his source does explain the impact rainforests have on C02 levels. More on this in R3. Hurricanes: Con refutes this by pointing out that hurricanes would increase under natural warming trends to and thus the point is irrelevant to the debate. Point to con. R3: C02, pro never associates rising C02 levels to rising temperatures, which weakens the point but Pro wins the point by citing studies indiciating its upward trend. Ultimately, con wins more poi
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.