The Instigator
DrunkHoboSniper
Pro (for)
The Contender
TheRealBatman117
Con (against)

CO2 Emissions are good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheRealBatman117 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 343 times Debate No: 110243
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

CO2 Emission are good

Present your case and I will respond
TheRealBatman117

Con

OMFG!! Do you even know what CO2 is!?!?!?!?!?!?! It can kill you! And with all the trees being cut down, there is increasingly less CO2 being converted to oxygen!
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

They say CO2 Dangerous but CO2 has little effect on the environment, changes in temperature are natural and extreme weather is a hoax ( not warming just that CO2 is the root cause)
Happer, writes on 3/27
Dr. William Happer, Chairman of the Marshall Institute and Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University, is a specialist in modern optics, optical and radiofrequency spectroscopy of atoms and molecules, and spin-polarized atoms and nuclei. From 1991 to 1993, he served as Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy and on his return to Princeton, he was named Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics and Chair of the University Research Board. 3/27/12, "Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again" http://online.wsj.com...

." What is happening to global temperatures nothing The latest monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees. The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the (IPCC) to demonize CO2 million),. CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels. Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated.. The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. the timing of the warming suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true.. Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942, fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes over the past 50 years . But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions.

Then they say that because tree are being pulled up that not as much oxygen is being produced
However this is
1.Not a reason in which carbon emission are good or bad, deforestation will occur regardless of carbon emmisons being good or bad
2.Trees are not the only plan that turn CO2 into O2
3.Means this is not a reason that CO2 emissions are bad

food crises are beginning --- only CO2 ensures strong plants that can provide for the increasing globe
Idso et. al. writes in 1
1"Former Professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology @ Arizona State and PhD from UMinnesota and former research physicist for the Department of Agriculture"AND Keith Idso, PhD in Botany"AND Craig, PhD in Geography (Sherwood, "Is There a Need for a More Sustainable Agriculture?" Vol. 14, Iss. 24, 15 June 2011, http://co2science.org..., DA: 6/23/2012//

In a paper that came to our attention Gomiero ask the question "Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture?" they write notwithstanding the great achievements of the 'Green Revolution,' the world will need 70 to 100% more food by 2050," concluding that "a new challenge lies ahead: how to feed nine billion with less land, water and energy, while at the same time preserving natural resources and soil fertility." In their analysis of the question, Gomiero et al. state that "technical advances are important in order to meet the future needs," as does Idso.Gomiero et al. state that "addressing key socioeconomic issues, such as the inequality in the access to resources, population growth and access to education are also a priority if we want to properly deal with sustainability." Idso alludes to these same factors, but he concentrates most heavily on a subject not touched upon by Gomiero et al. -- the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. Idso identifies the 45 key crops that account for 95% of world food production, after which he calculates the rates at which their productivities rose over the past 15 years in response to all technological innovations of that time period plus the concurrent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. , calculating the percentage increases in the productivities of these crops in response to a 300-ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration from experimental data tabulated in the Plant Growth Database of CO2 Science, and knowing how much the atmosphere's CO2 content rose over 15 years, he determines what part of the past 15 years' productivity increases were due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 Extending the linear regression representing this latter effect to the year 2050, and using the IPCC's best median estimate of what the atmosphere's CO2 concentration will be in that year, Idso calculates the productivity increases of the 45 key crops due to the aerial fertilization effect of CO2 to that time, This he does for the world as a whole, he determines which entities' projected crop productivity increases fall either below, within or above the 70-100% interval that is deemed necessary to insure food security in 2050, with productivity increases below 70% representing food insecurity, with those above 100% representing food security, and with anything in between being a "maybe" in terms of food security. The results are rather chilling. And they should cause all those who are calling for mandatory reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions to seriously reconsider their views on the subject, while those who may not have thought at all about the topic should do so now; for the looming global food crisis is everybody's business, and all should have a say in what to do about it.

CO2 provides an essential boon to agriculture " 600 years of African trends prove
Taylor writes in 11
James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism with a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers. He is also senior fellow for The Heartland Institute focusing on environmental issues. " Climate Change Weekly: Global Warming Benefiting Africa"s Sahel Region" http://news.heartland.org... Accessed 6/18/12
the notion that global warming is devastating the Sahel is unlikely to stand the dual tests of time and scientific scrutiny. the argument that Western democracies should reduce carbon dioxide emissions may have been driving the study, rather than the other way around. Gonzalez is a lead author for the (IPCC), whose funding are dependent on the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis having a new study claiming global warming is causing drought and related problems in Africa"s Sahel region bolsters the shared interests of Gonzalez and IPCC., NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey funded the study. If such funded studies find little about which to be concerned, NASA and U.S. Geological Survey funds dry up, as do funds for Gonzalez and his National Park Service employers., many studies have documented improving conditions in the Sahel as the earth has warmed. "The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa," "Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing An "analysis of satellite images reveals that dunes are retreating "Vegetation is ousting sand Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s a survey among farmers shows a 70 per cent increase in yields of local cereals, "satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara." "The broader picture is reinforced by studies carried out in the Namib Desert "This is a region with an average rainfall of just 12 millimetres. Last year the local research centre, measured 80mm Scientists at Brown confirmed a longer term improvement in African soil moisture. After studying African drought patterns since the 1400s, the scientists reported in January 2007 in the peer-reviewed science journal Geology that Africa is "experiencing an unusually prolonged period of stable, wet conditions in comparison to previous centuries of the past millennium." The same patterns are occurring globally. Analyzing satellite imagery that has been available since 1982, scientists reported in a 2003 peer-reviewed study in Science, "We present a global investigation of vegetation responses to climatic changes by analyzing 18 years of both climatic data and satellite observations of vegetation activity. Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% globally
TheRealBatman117

Con

If this was face to face I probably would have b*tch slap you. Look at the glaciers they are falling apart! And no, they don't just say it to trick you. They say it because they have actual evidence to back it up! I don't understand how you are such an idiot! Just do some research before you even try do a debate! PLEASE!!!! FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 3
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

First lets go to what my opponent says

They say that the arctic is melting. Yeah I agree. I never said they weren't. In fact I never said warming wasn't real. I was very specific to this.

My opponent makes a ton of claims but doesn't read any evidence so mine must stand.

Its far to late for them to read any now I dont get another round to respond.

My argument was with the food shortage that is coming we need more CO2 emissions
This goes dropped so I win this

Next I said that CO2 creates an agriculture boom.
This goes dropped as well so i win CO2 helps with ag.

Look this debate is pretty simple. They Con only makes claims without using any evidence and the Pro has proven that given the circumstances CO2 emissions are good. Lets go to an impact calc

Probability:
There is a 100% risk of a food shortage coming. This is proven when the Con drops everything. There is also a 100% chance of that an increase of CO2 emissions solve for the coming food shortage.

Time frame:
The time frame is extremely quick to reach the impact of food shortages especially when the con doesn't do any work on time frame debate

Magnitude:
The magnitude debate is easily one by the pro when there are conceded impacts that end in wars through famine and resource wars because of the coming food shortages.

Underview:
Look you may not agree with what I am saying but that doesn't matter I am easily winning this debate you may have reasons why you disagree and that fine but dont make those arguments for the Con when you cast your vote hold them to what they have said in last rounds. Dont let them make new arguments I dont get another round to respond for them. Your voting pro because the Con drops everything. That is your easy way out.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 7 months ago
DrunkHoboSniper
True
Posted by Amphia 7 months ago
Amphia
This person is going to forfeit. I'm telling you.
You always start your debates real simple so people think it'll be a nice discussion.
And then...
BOOM!
You hit them with a block of text and it's very overwhelming.
Haha, I'm just kidding.
Not really.
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 7 months ago
DrunkHoboSniper
I wanna be able to vote
Posted by DrunkHoboSniper 7 months ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Hey let's finish
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.