Question: Is Anthropogenic Activity the Main Cause of Global Climate Change?

Irreversible climate change renders geoengineering a necessary option.

It is highly probable that the effects of global warming are irreversible. Given that global warming is already taking place and there are no concrete plans to decrease the greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere, the concentration of greenhouse gases is expected to continue to rise, regardless of reductions in new emissions. As a result, geoengineering may be the only viable solution left.

No, your first two references do not show anything.The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah.The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in climate science. This, of course, is just a massive appeal to authority fallacy.False InformationWhat?! You know you can't just say "that's not true" and then have something not be true, right?Climate change poses a threat to humanityHere: http://www.greenpeace.org...Here: http://www.greenpeace.org...;Aaaand here: http://www.who.int...;Earth Self RegulatesWhere'd you get that from? The graphs obviously show that the temperature has not stayed level, so this point is just misinformation."Hockey stick is broken" No it isn't, ya silly: https://www.skepticalscience.com..."CO2 increase doesn't affect temperature." *sigh* Graphs.What even is this point. It talks about radiation, then some arbitrary distance, then shortening that arbitrary difference, then talks about how distance =/= temperature (reasonable), and finally throws out some arbitrary percentage to top it all off.

http://www.youtube.com...I hate it when links are broken...http://www.skepticalscience.com...If this doesn't work, click on the original link and take off the extra space at the end of the link in the URL bar. I actually quoted the wrong part of this website by mistake. I was meant to quote "It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity."Also, apologies for writing Carbon Dioxide as Co2 (Cobalt2, as my adversary points out). It's just the way I grew up writing it.Moving on...____________________________________________________________________________________==Counter 1: Co2 and its effects=="Now remind yourself that Pro said in Round 2 that CO2 is responsable for LARGE amount of Global Warming." - OpponentI'm not sure where I said this. I ask my adversary to quote from me.In fact, my opponent's entire rebuttal for this argument is misleading. It is subjective to use only Co2 as a base for a rebuttal against the resolution. If we were to count all the other causes of the greenhouse effect, then it is very possible to conclude that this can heat Earth by more than just 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit. My opponent even concedes that there is a warming caused by anthropogenic emissions, but then states that it is very low. That isn't what his BoP wants. To fulfill it, he must disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming."Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature." - OpponentNot only have Co2 levels increased, but there are steep increases in other greenhouse gases as well [1]: Be reminded that there is already a correlation between Earth's temperature and Co2 levels, and that the rates of circular cooling and warming, and increase/decrease of Co2 levels have stopped and started to rise severely [2]: We cannot use my opponent's graph which suggests the contrary to the temperatures above, as it only uses data from Georgia [3], a state in the United States of America [4]. There is literally a direct contradiction between my adversary's chart (from 1990, Georgia) and mine (1880, worldwide).Atmospheric concentrations of Co2 and anthropogenic emissions of Co2 have a correlation as well [5]: My opponent then goes on to review a graph on the logarithmic effects of increased carbon dioxide levels. Even if this is true, by my opponent's logic there is still a warming effect. It just gets smaller, but not negative. We can't say that the warming effect is slower to disprove the entirety of anthropogenic global warming, because that is fallacious and invalid, and ends up failing to fulfill the real BoP here.==Counter 2: The earth is actually cooling==People and websites have actually shown the hot-spot absence to be fake. According to Skeptical Science, the absence of the hot-spot could be due to the errors in the processing of data [6]:"Satellite measurements match model results apart from in the tropics. There is uncertainty with the tropic data due to how various teams correct for satellite drift. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program conclude the discrepancy is most likely due to data errors." - Skeptical Science [6]"Allen and Sherwood sought to side step the problems associated with the radiosonde data entirely, and examined the “dynamical relationship known as the thermal-wind equation, which relates horizontal temperature gradients to wind shear”. Thermal wind speed data, in contrast to the temperature data, lacked many of the systematic adjustment issues and other errors, and were used as a proxy for temperature. Allen and Sherwood found that the troposphere appeared to be warming in reasonable agreement to theoretical and modeling expectations." - Skeptical Science [6] The IPCC projections are actually considered to be quite accurate, in comparison to both of Easterbrook's projections [7] (animation of both comparisons, then together): "All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable." - Skeptical Science [7]==Counter 3: Arctic Ice and Sea Levels==Note that the rise and fall of the data represents sea level CHANGE RATES, not the sea level itself. The majority of the data is above zero, meaning that on average the sea level, even if minimally, is rising.In fact, the sea level rise is actually accelerating quite quickly [8]: "A variety of different measurements find steadily rising sea levels over the past century." - Skeptical Science [8]"The trend shows only a mere +/- 0.30 mm per year. "The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory estimates the rate of sea level rise at 1.42 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1954 to 2003. This is less than the estimate of 1.91 plus or minus 0.14 mm/year for the period 1902 to 1953, indicating a slowing of the rate." [6] We can see that 2.8 inches per 50 years isn't that much of an appocolyptic threat." - OpponentThis is irrelevant. We are debating whether anthropogenic global warming exists, not if it is dangerous or not. The existence of something does not mandate an argument of how safe it is.My opponent actually concedes that there is a rise, but again tries to save his stance on the argument by saying that it is minimal, which again isn't the point. By my opponent's logic, if man-made global warming exists, sea levels should not rise at all, to which he has conceded the contrary. Thus my opponent concedes this entire point.Also, although Arctic sea ice extent does follow a pattern, it is still gradually decreasing [9]: Although I will concede the Antarctic ice is expanding, the arctic is losing ice more than twice as fast than the Antarctic is gaining ice [10][11]."Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)." - NASA [10]==Counter 4: Hurricanes and Tornadoes==I had already proven that tornadoes are not linked to global warming whatsoever, so this argument has been debunked. The hurricane argument has been re-responded to.To reinforce the fact that hurricanes are getting more intense however, here is a graph showing the increase of more intense hurricanes over time [12]: "Higher surface temperatures of the world's oceans could be responsible for the big rise in the strength of hurricanes, say US scientists." - Physicsworld.com [12]==Counter 5: Ocean Acidification==Although it is correct that ocean acidification is not yet at a critical level, it is acidifying very rapidly. It is predicted that by 2100 the ocean will have a pH as low as 7.8 [13]: "Currently, there are no known natural explanations for the observed decline in GLOBAL AVERAGE ocean pH, and, there is one, clear human-caused explanation (note the global bit is important - there is natural local variation in pH but we are concerned with global shifts)." - Switchboard [13]Since the ocean is acidifying, the organisms in the ocean will slowly die out, for anaerobic organisms to replace them and emit gases such as methane, as shown in the last round.==Conclusion==I have effectively refuted all my opponent's claims and have shown how my opponent has essentially conceded. Thus the resolution is affirmed.[1] http://www.natsoc.org.au...[2] http://www.ukccsc.co.uk...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[5] http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com...[6] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[7] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[8] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[9] http://www.carbonbrief.org...[10] http://www.nasa.gov...[11/video] [12] http://physicsworld.com...[13] http://switchboard.nrdc.org...

My opponent think I am for global warming. I am FOR changes to stop global warming. I don't think my opponent understands what change means. Change means to transform or alter. I want to ALTER or TRANSFORM our use of various items that cause global warming. Such as our dependency on oil, especially foreign oil, factory production of harmful gases into the atmosphere, and different means of transportation that contribute to global warming. Closing arguements: Believe it or not, global warming is occurring all across the world. Humans have cause this, by burning fossil fuels, such as carbon dioxide, cars, and factories. I am for the changing of our life styles to help stop global warming.

Believer, Your thesis seems to be "there are many reasons why global climate change should not be so quickly acted against." Let me begin by picking apart the basis of your argument, this would be the statement you made concerning the Little Climate Optimum. You have stated, "The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times." This statement is actually incorrect. From 1860-1900 global land tempuratures have had an increase of .75 degrees C according to the instrumental tempurature record. Beginning in 1979, land tempuratures have increased twice as fast as ocean tempuratures. It has actually been thought that 1 to 2 thousand years before the period of 1860 that climate tempuratures have remained relatively stable. In consideration to the little climate optimum (it is actually called the Medieval Climate Optimum) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made the following statement, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."(http://www.grida.no...) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also said, "idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect...records that do exist show that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...) It seems that the other considerations you made about this period, such as "Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth." are simply spurious. you also said, "And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit." As beneficial as climate change may be to plants, it would be simply horrible to human beings. It is not the warming of the planet that is dangerous, however, it is the effect it has on arctic glaciers. When temperatures increase glaciers begin to melt, thus causing a number of effects. 1.)Glacial retreat- a lack of equilibrium in which throws off glaicier climates. 2.) Arctic shrinkage- the more the glaciers melt, the more quickly they begin to melt. 3.)sea-level rise- states, countries, continents begin to disappear, simple as that. Among other things as glaciers begin to melt the proportion of salt and fresh water that maintains stable weather patterns will be out of equilibrium. This could result in increased flooding and precipitation, droughts, and the frequency and intensity of other various weather patterns (hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. etc.). "Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere." The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860. We live in a country where we operate on a basis of risk management. Let's think of some examples, War with vietname ($600 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT communism would take over the world. War with Iraq ($204 billion)(http://www.antiwar.com...)-THOUGHT they had nuclear weapons so we attacked first (or something) Developement of the Atom Bomb(billions of trillions if you consider the arms race that it began)- THOUGHT hitler was going to make one first. Why is it that in most instances the Unites States takes pre-emptive action on the grounds of PREVENTION? Because if we can stop it before it starts than we won't find ourselves in a place where its just too late to do anything. Thus your claim is that we should not act quickly. I believe we should...wether its happening or not. Climate Change has the potential of ending the world. With that being said, let's weigh our options... Do nothing, nothing happens- Everyone is happy. Do nothing, something happens- Everyone is dead, essentially. There are droughts, economic turmoil, hurricanes, floods, etc. etc. Imagine your worst nightmare. Do something, nothing happens- Economy takes a hit, but its repairable. In comparison to doing nothing and something happening, I think its a pretty comfortable sacrafice to make. Do something, something happens- Everyone is happy. Considering these options, and that we've spent billions on other potential threats in the past...then why not this one?

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source.0. http://www.debate.org...

Looking at the first five paragraphs... you essentially agree and repeat what I've said. You provide a link that doesn't work. (says "Service Unavailable) Nothing to respond to. #6 You claim that some scientists disagree on what affects the weather. That's not really an argument. You point out that some people are saving the world from CO2. I'm sure some do, however, if I recall correctly: - Americans on average produce 20 tonnes of CO2 per year - Europeans produce ~10 tonnes - Chinese 3 tonnes - Africans produce less than 1 tonne per year on average. We are producing far (far) more than we save. Next you declare that a 0.6 degree increase in temperature is "a subtle effect". This has been enough melt over half the Arctic's summer ice, and open up the Northwest Passage for the first time in history. If you consider that "subtle effect", I would hate to see a "moderate effect". #7 You quote me #8 You agree that Earth's climate changes in response to forces. Then you suggest that natural forces may act to reverse the trend, but you don't say what these could be. You tell us that the some people in the past have claimed we were suffering from global cooling. So what? I know a man who believes the world is flat. Lastly you claim "science IS skepticism". No, it isn't. #9 You quote me again #10 You claim that "nothing is really known at all". I really should ridicule you about this, however I think that is a detestable debating practice. Instead I will try again to make it clear to you: We know that some gasses heat when hit by infra-red radiation. We know (with great precision) how much they respond. We know these things just as surely as I know that if you drive off a cliff you will fall. Do you deny any of these things? We can accurately measure the proportion of greenhouse gasses there are. We can accurately measure the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface to heat these gasses. Thus we know the degree of temperature forcing. This is the force that you have admitted will change the climate. Because it's positive, we are experiencing Global Warming. The World is not homogenous. The land masses are uneven, the clouds, winds and ocean currents can make large local changes. Ocean currents can carry heat below the surface or bring it up. This changes the average global temperature (el Nino or la Nina). These deviations from average are of course temporary. On average, if more heat is held within our atmosphere, it must heat. It's as simple as that. This heating will mean less life and a worse world. If we don't want that, we must take action.

I think the main confusion lies in us as humans. But i consider what youve said.

My case is essentially a counter case to my opponents, so it refutes his arguments in and of itself. 1. Global warming, true?Much of the data that claims the world is heating is actually unreliable, the classic examples (cited in most global warming editorials) is the ground heaters that show massive increases, yet the funny thing is they are unreliable. First, these scanners started seeing heat at certain times, mainly around 2000. At the same time, many of these stations where previously recording no change. But in 2000, many of the recorders where moved or things where built. Many where found like this. One started seeing increased temperatures, BUT the time it saw an increase is when an are conditioner was installed next to it. [1] Now this is a problem as the air conditioner emits hot air, hence the increases in these modules can be linked to the air conditioner. Many of the recorders used where moved into urban areas when previously where rooted in the suburbs. They saw an increase, obviously, they installed them next to roads, asphalt reflects heat, metal buildings, same problems as roads, and then again a lot near air conditioners. A kid could see the problems with this. Other stations saw growth if they where rooted in suburbs, then the suburbs expanded in population, more houses roads etc. [2] As we can see this has serious problems as these highly cited materials fall into one basic problem: The extra asphalt, man made heating objects therefore emit heat near the censors confounding the result, hence there is a likely hood many of the stats you cite are, well, unreliable.Further many of the large studies that show global warming are highly exaggerated, and have been found of fraud accounts. Hence the data my opponent cites is data, but whether or not the data is fabricated is another question. [3]89% of global warming detectors failed to meet accuracy standards due to the reasons above. [8]Quote:" The southern hemisphere of the earth has been generally cooling for the past fifty years, Hundreds of years of data show that temperature rises precede increase in CO2 levels, rather than following them, Ice cover at the north and south pole is growing, which results in more glaciers breaking away Throughout the 20th Century, temperatures have been rising on other planets in our solar system – including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, Neptune's largest moon – where few people drive SUVs. This clearly points to increased solar activity as the cause of global warming on the Earth, rather than any human activity." [10] http://a-sceptical-mind.com... (graphs)My graphs aren't posting anymore, its really annoying, is it like this for everybody? I cant ask Ima for cnfidnetial reasons. 2. Polar ice is expanding We can see from data in Greenland that the ice and snow is actually expanding, not decreasing like Al Gore would claim. As we can see:"Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year." [4]Cold war satellites (during time of their function), find that the ice is expanding continually in Greenland, and not decreasing. These stations first received 4 feet of snow, per fall, but in 2006 many of the stations where semi-burried by the snow. The site, formerly alive, is now buried in snow, while greenland ice expands. [5] Now what about overall arctic ice volume? Using US navy data the volume of the ice is increasing and the ice is expanding. [6] "The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice." [6]So the thin ice is being defeated, this implies that the ice is getting thicker, this requires colder temperatures, this is an "arrow to the knee" for global warming proponents. How can ice get thicker under warmer temperatures, and how can formerly thin ice get thicker? 3. Global cooling? Now, this is generally pushed to the side in most climate change debates. Well yaddy blah blah blank my liberal science teacher said X. People are mainly going of knee jerk reactions look towards the "majority". Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. [7] Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease. "As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states." [8]4. Even if the earth is warming, it may be natural. http://www.forbes.com... (page two graph)Due to the predicatable fluctuations, we can assume we could predict the cycles and it also shows that global warmign is also caused by a natural cause. Also:http://www.isil.org... (half way down graph[s])This also shows the earths temperture is constantly changing, and we can assume it is a natural fluctuation. With this data, the resolution is negated as even if you prove the global wamring scare, you need to explain the natura fluctuations which easily explain it. If global warmign exists, the governments CANT do anything to stop natural cycles, hence it would be a waste of reasources. 5. Economic harms of regulations First if we assume humans create this phenomona, we must ask what is the cause? The most common claim is human CO2 and oil usage, natural gas etc. But these regulations DO harm the economy. Many of tese regulations are huge costs to buisness, this is hard on them as now they must eiher give up or find ways to compensate (fire workers, or declare bankrupsy), and then no body is helped. These regulations hurt buisness by raising costs, and higher costs to buisness hurt the companies, econ 101. Further, many of these regulations outsoruce jobs for the reason above, or actually make it impossible to do X here, so they do X in china as they can actually do stuff there. One perfect regulaton is the congress' plan to regulate 85% of energy, this harms big time. It is estimated to lease 85% of our energy, and prevent them from drilling on areas that could sustain us from Saudi Arabias imports for 30 years. [9] So these regulations FORCE other countries to take our supplies, well not take, but replace and indirectly take out jobs. Sorry, tese regulaitosn hurt us. CONCLUSION: My case disproves global warming claims, and proves if global warming occurs it is likely natural, hence if it doesn't exist its a waste of time, if it does exist but is natural its a waste of time, if the earth is cooling it is a waste of time, and if it hurts the economy it is one colstly downside. My case esentially refutes my opponents, and I used facts. I urge a CON vote. _________[1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://onforb.es... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://on.wsj.com... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly...

"Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming." Are you kidding me? We've have global warming and cooling for thousands upon thousands of years. 30 thousand years ago the earth was covered in sheets of ice. http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com... "for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age." That's fine if researchers want to call a 1-degree change in temperature an ice age. If true, it only demonstrates that an "ice age" is easier to come by than expected. According to the graph in your own reference we almost reached an "ice age" in 1860 and again in 1910. So I guess it says quite a bit about significance of a 1-degree change-- no big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Up until 100 years ago, CO2 was 280ppm of air. We burnt forest, coal and oil in vast quantities. Air now contains CO2 is now over 385ppm." A lot of things (natural and man-made) have happened over the last 100 years to increase CO2 output. Scientists disagree not only on whether this affects weather, but on how much of the additional output is caused by man. We put out forest fires that would otherwise burn for months. We farm lands that would otherwise be barren. And if we are responsible for a 38% increase in CO2 output in a 100-year period, a .6 degree increase in temperature only shows how subtle the greenhouse effect actually is-- AND THAT IS ONLY IF WE CAN PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT CAUSED THE INCREASE. That fact that so many respected scientists oppose the green-house argument is proof that it is but a theory, and not a known fact. But you won't hear about these scientists unless you do your own research( http://www.speroforum.com... ). Otherwise, enjoy your media-imposed ignorance of opposing viewpoints. "As Issac Newton demonstrated, an object either sits still, or continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The Earth's atmosphere also obeys the laws of physics." That's why, as your chart shows ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) the earth's climate has changed directions so many times in the past. Yes, change does require force. And natural forces have always been there to act upon earth's temperature. There is no reason to believe it won't happen again, naturally reversing the current trend. Do you know hat in the 1970s and 1980s scientist (and politicians) were trying to convince the public that we were well on our way to another ice age due to global cooling? They too said they saw no signs the trend would reverse itself. Skeptics in this case were also brushed off for not being part of the "consensus." For god sake, science IS skepticism. "It's sensible to act when one has knowledge of a threat. We have this knowledge. We know the trend. We know that greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org...... We know of few negating factors and many (many) positive reinforcing factors e.g. the melting of the highly reflective Arctic and the thawing of tundra that will release yet more greenhouse gas." You use the word "know" quite a bit, yet nothing is really "known" at all. I thought we were in agreement on this and debating only on whether we should act upon unconfirmed suspicion (albeit backed by alluring arguments from just one side of the issue). About 72% of leading scientists are agnostic or atheist because their is no conclusive evidence of god's existence-- even though the ID crowd has come up with some pretty clever arguments. Since even the pro-global-warming scientist will tell you they cannot definitively prove their global warming theory, science-minded Americans should take a similar (agnostic) stance on global warming argument. By the way, how do you (and nobody else) "know" the global-warming crowd has it right?

Before I begin, I would like to bring up a prior statement you made from Round One: "Correlation is always an argument in this debate...It seems hard to argue CO2 causes the warming when it fails to correlate to a degree of ‘good’ and its rivals for the title—the sun and the PDO—correlate much better then it." (See Round one for full quote.) . I would like to point out that this is true, but the Regression Factor of CO2 would of course not be as effectual as the Irradiance of the Sun, as that is where all energy on our planet originates. The r=.44 of Carbon is not as large as the PDO and AMO (Pacific and Atlantic Decadal Oscillation), but .44 still means that there is a strong enough correlation, that it may affect our mean temperature. Of course, the .83 r factor of our currents is more effectual, since a large amount of our world’s heat is stored in our oceans as shown in the following chart: [2] Notice that there are more high temperature areas in the oceans (mostly since the ocean is 75% of the Earth's surface area), and that they go farther North and South than the land masses do. This was meant to be included in my last round, I'm sorry for including it now. 1. Climate Change is real and is a threat There definitely have been natural warmings of our planet, but never as fast as these last 162 years in which we have kept records of our planet's weather. In the last 7 years alone, Carbon counts globally have risen 18ppm according to various studies. [1, 3] In regards to the end of a noticeable rise in temperature being 1995, I still wholly agree. However: it is well known that just because one thing happens, the effects of it are not immediately felt. Just as how we are only now seeing light from stars that shone that light millions of years ago. The ocean's currents will not change immediately, but slowly over a few years, as will sea level. Though sea levels aren't rising worldwide, they are growing by an average rate of 3.11mm per year, an increase in the average (documented prior to 2000) of 1.63mm more per year. [4] "However, the effects of our changing climate are growing each year, as showing by increases in hurricane severity in the last 60 years," is a quote from my Round Two which you referenced in your rebuttal: "Regardless...the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]." (See Round two for full quote) I would like to point out that I never said there were more hurricanes, only that these storms were stronger than before. Again, I will cite this: [5] As for your claim that hurricane intensity has flat lined, realize that your source only documents hurricanes post-landfall. Landfall is when the eye of the hurricane is only on land, and hurricanes begin to lose force as the storm's boundaries cross the shore line, so most hurricanes are documented at a weaker strength after they have already done the majority of the damage they can. [6] Allow me to define climate: noun. 1. The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. 2. The prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest. [7] According to this, the dust bowl was an effect of climate change, and my opponent even says that it was caused by humans through over-farming. 2. Humans are the cause of climate change First thing I would like to say in this section is that your source 7 is out of date, as many more have been released since then that contradict what is put forth here. [3, 8] As for Carbon ppm being 3000ppm 60mya, I must cry false, as 3000ppm is only a few thousand ppm lower than during the Cambrian era, in which the mean temperature was 7 degrees centigrade higher than today. 60mya, Carbon ppm was, at its highest peak, 1700ppm during the last years of Cretaceous era, and 500ppm only 6 million years later in the Paleocene era. [9-11] In accordance to your claim that glaciers are growing, I will argue that, saying that they grow in height, but not enough to compensate for the amount lost -- or not even gained in the first place -- each year. I can agree that these ice masses slowed their ice loss, but they resumed to lose more after your source 8 and 9 were published. [12, 13] 3. Fixing the problem Renewable energy sources are continuing to become more efficient. Remember: it took us, as Hominids, 400,000 to achieve the level of efficiency we have today in combustion. [14, 15] To dismiss our strides in renewable energy so quickly is rash and immature as a species. Sure, wind turbines are dangerous to avian life. Hydro plants are obtrusive and change the local climate due to human interference. [16] Solar cells are expensive and large, and the output is not always sufficient. However! These innovations are from the last century, and in the next decade, we will have technologies that will far surpass what we have today as a renewable source. Even now, the photovoltaics which Con so easily dismissed are being produced and developed more than any renewable source (nuclear excluded, not renewable) with 1/100th the cost and 50% more efficiency. These are simply trial versions as well. [17] Wind kites can harness energy for the average home with no human maintenance and a 30-50-killowatt/hour range, with even more effective versions in development. [18] Biomass fuels are becoming more common [19] and soon may be one of the must substantial sources of fuel. Nuclear energy is the best we have (for now) in lieu of a completely clean renewable energy. If these energies were more substantial in countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, etc., the crisis we may be facing in the next decade can be stopped before it even starts. New Section: 4. The animal effect Concentrated atmospheric pollution kills millions of animals and gives humans living there life-threatening complications. [20] As these animals die from new diseases, pollution, and habitat loss (also climate change), we face a grim future. The complex chain of animals in our environment is so precarious, that one extinction or introduction could topple a whole ecosystem, throwing that climate in to turmoil, domino-ing the whole planet. In Conclusion! I believe that this round gives a broader view of the problem than Con is willing to propose, but cannot be neglected. VOTE PRO [1] http://wattsupwiththat.com... [2] http://www.physicalgeography.net... [3] http://climate.nasa.gov... [4] http://climate.nasa.gov... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] NationalHurricaneCenter (2009). Glossary of NHC Terms: Landfall. Retrieved on 2009-02-05. [7] http://dictionary.reference.com... [8] http://climate.nasa.gov... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://climate.nasa.gov... [13] http://climate.nasa.gov... [14] Price, David. "Energy and Human Evolution". Retrieved 2012 December 10. [15] James, Steven R. (February 1989). "Hominid Use of Fire in the Lower and Middle Pleistocene: A Review of the Evidence". [16] http://en.wikipedia.org... [17] Streep, Abe. "The Brilliant Ten: Greg Nielson." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 47. Print. [18] North, Dave. "Blueprint: Higher Power." Popular Science: The Future Now. 2012: 18. Print. [19] http://www.tgdaily.com... [20] Gabbard, Alex (2008-02-05). "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource or Danger". Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Retrieved 2008-10-22. *for sources 9-11, use chart in upper-right hand corner


Question: Is mankind's impact the main cause of the global climate shift?

Climate Change and Human Influence
Point A: Climate change is undeniable and primarily human-induced
Sub point 1: Scientific consensus confirms climate change
"Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Local temperatures naturally fluctuate, but over the past 50 years, the average global temperature has risen at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists predict that unless we curb emissions causing climate change, average U.S. temperatures could rise by 3 to 9 degrees by the end of the century." Scientists are in agreement that climate change is real, as evidenced by numerous scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists concur. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)
Point B: Human activity is a significant driver of climate change
Sub point 1: Scientific consensus on human impact
"The U.S. Global Change Research Program, which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, and the National Science Foundation, has stated 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)
"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6)
Sub point 2: Carbon emissions are a major cause of climate change, driven by human activity
"The only way to explain the pattern of climate change is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2)
"Most climate scientists agree that 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. 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)
Point C: Climate change poses a threat to humanity's future, a legitimate concern for those who care about the planet's future
Global climate change leads to:
-Increased temperatures
-Changing landscapes
-Increased frequency of droughts, fires, and floods
-Endangered wildlife habitats
-Rising sea levels
-Greater damage from extreme storms
-More heat-related illness and disease
-Economic problems(4)
Sub point 1: Climate change exacerbates natural

i define the topic to mean: globel warming over the past few decades is a result of human activity. so there

there's no question that temperature and CO2 is correlated. you can see that in the links i provided, historically. here is that they are more than just correlated, but tied together http://www.skepticalscience.com... you can click on "advanced" for advanced explanations of the science. or you can read the simpler versiosn. it is pointless for me to repeat what it says. it gives an example of measuring the sun that gets refracted back to the earth from the CO2. and then it explains that there are ways to 'check your math' with alternative methods that pretty much then corroborate the findings. i could go on explaining it all, but that is unnecessary when you can read it yourself. con seems to eb conceding that a third of the warming is from the sun. my resolution can still stand though as all i said is that man made reaosns was significant. even if we accepted a study that said it was like two third of warming from the sun... it is still signficant from man, and that's all i resolved. even if you found a study to say otherise, the overwhelming consensus of studeis says that the sun is only a fraction of the warming cause, less than half.

My opponent concedes that man-made global warming is, in fact, real.While at this point I would usually proceed by simply extending my previous arguments until the end of the debate, I feel that particularly poor sportsmanship has been demonstrated by my opponent. Far from constructing baseless ad hominem conjectures against my opponent, I simply deconstructed common mistakes regarding anthropogenic climate change that are made by climategate proponents. My opponent does not genuinely feel disrespected; they recognise that their position is untenable and that the belief that has been instilled in them by their right-wing, science-hating parents does not reflect anything close to observation. You're not offended; you just know you're wrong.My objective is now not to convince you, which I have already done, but to convince our audience.________________________ Rebuttals from first roundMy opponent stated that, "[...]an ice age goes through two phases. The first one is the obvious "freezing" phase and the second phase is a predominantly warm one(see link 1)."While this isn't quite what the source indicates, it's basically right. There are periods of glaciation, and periods of warming. Cooling and warming are not uniform. I'd just like to quickly examine the way you've phrased this, though. Basically you're saying, it gets cold, then it gets warm. Well, obviously. If it stayed cold, we'd still be in an ice age. If it stayed warm, there'd never be ice ages. That's not helpful information.You then say, "[we are] going back into the cold phase." Erm, nope. I mean, we are getting cooler...if by cooler, you mean the temperature is rising.You then said, "At both poles there is rapidly growing ice."Your article goes on a right-wing binge-fest with absolutely no understanding of why that is happening. It makes specific reference to Antarctica. Yes. Sea ice is growing. This is because of strengthening westerly winds blowing sheets of snow and cold air further from the coast of the Antarctic continent(1). The strengthening winds are one indication of climate change(1). Further, while the sea ice spreads in geographic area, global ocean and atmospheric temperatures continue to increase. Looking at the data for a single year (i.e. we hit a record this year) is not indicative of trend. This mistake is confusing weather for climate, and is a common error. You're also looking at a single factor in isolation, and ignoring the rest of the data.Here's an informative video by Veritasium who describes the process and debunks some myths with the aid of some fun animations: The preponderance of the evidenceThe preponderance of the evidence, the consensus of the scientific literature, the data: "The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming" (Knutti & Hegerl, 2008)(2).Once again, if you wish to demonstrate that the models are incorrect, then you must supply the evidence that climate change is not occurring. Your reasons for doubting the science are political. Wanting something to be true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false. Environmental refugeesWe are going to see floods of environmental refugees as a result of rising sea levels. How can one simply ignore this information?- The pacific island nation of Kiribati has just finalised the purchase of land in Fiji to initially grow crops on after their domestic agriculture was destroyed by encroaching seawater, then as a place to relocate once their entire country sinks(3). New Zealand will have to grant the population what functionally amounts to environmental asylum.- Tuvalu is going to sink and the population will need evacuating (4, 5)- This is just the start of implications for changes to the climate.Summing upMy opponent had the burden of proof in demonstrating that global warming is a hoax. This has not yet been done, and if last round is anything to go by, I suspect my opponent will concede defeat. However, it would be interesting to hear his take. So, I ask you the following questions:- What is your evidence for the hoax?- Who initiated the hoax?- Why did they initiate it? What's the motive?- How is it the case that the independent scientific community, meteorologists and government bodies have separately and through peer-review arrived at the same or similar conclusions? If it was false, wouldn't the claims be widely varying?- Who is the chief orchestrator of this grand conspiracy? They must have a leader since all their claims are the same.- Is their really more profit to be found by scientists conducting research, than by massive oil cartels, coal and gas miners, and refiners and importers? Is renewable energy really going to earn more money for solar-cell syndicates than fossil fuels will for the energy industry?Perhaps the conspiracy is, in fact, on the other side. Until next round, if you decide to defend your position._______________________________________________________________________________1. [http://www.abc.net.au...]2. [http://www.iac.ethz.ch...]3. [http://www.gizmodo.com.au...]4. [http://www.motherjones.com...]5. [http://www.nytimes.com...]

My case is essentially a counter case to my opponents, so it refutes his arguments in and of itself. 1. Global warming, true?Much of the data that claims the world is heating is actually unreliable, the classic examples (cited in most global warming editorials) is the ground heaters that show massive increases, yet the funny thing is they are unreliable. First, these scanners started seeing heat at certain times, mainly around 2000. At the same time, many of these stations where previously recording no change. But in 2000, many of the recorders where moved or things where built. Many where found like this. One started seeing increased temperatures, BUT the time it saw an increase is when an are conditioner was installed next to it. [1] Now this is a problem as the air conditioner emits hot air, hence the increases in these modules can be linked to the air conditioner. Many of the recorders used where moved into urban areas when previously where rooted in the suburbs. They saw an increase, obviously, they installed them next to roads, asphalt reflects heat, metal buildings, same problems as roads, and then again a lot near air conditioners. A kid could see the problems with this. Other stations saw growth if they where rooted in suburbs, then the suburbs expanded in population, more houses roads etc. [2] As we can see this has serious problems as these highly cited materials fall into one basic problem: The extra asphalt, man made heating objects therefore emit heat near the censors confounding the result, hence there is a likely hood many of the stats you cite are, well, unreliable.Further many of the large studies that show global warming are highly exaggerated, and have been found of fraud accounts. Hence the data my opponent cites is data, but whether or not the data is fabricated is another question. [3]89% of global warming detectors failed to meet accuracy standards due to the reasons above. [8]Quote:" The southern hemisphere of the earth has been generally cooling for the past fifty years, Hundreds of years of data show that temperature rises precede increase in CO2 levels, rather than following them, Ice cover at the north and south pole is growing, which results in more glaciers breaking away Throughout the 20th Century, temperatures have been rising on other planets in our solar system – including Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and Triton, Neptune's largest moon – where few people drive SUVs. This clearly points to increased solar activity as the cause of global warming on the Earth, rather than any human activity." [10] http://a-sceptical-mind.com... (graphs)My graphs aren't posting anymore, its really annoying, is it like this for everybody? I cant ask Ima for cnfidnetial reasons. 2. Polar ice is expanding We can see from data in Greenland that the ice and snow is actually expanding, not decreasing like Al Gore would claim. As we can see:"Though the ice may be melting around the edges of the Greenland Icecap in recent years during the warm mode of the AMO much as it did during the last warm phase in the 1930s to 1950s, snow and ice levels continue to rise in most of the interior. Johannessen in 2005 estimated an annual net increase of ice by 2 inches a year." [4]Cold war satellites (during time of their function), find that the ice is expanding continually in Greenland, and not decreasing. These stations first received 4 feet of snow, per fall, but in 2006 many of the stations where semi-burried by the snow. The site, formerly alive, is now buried in snow, while greenland ice expands. [5] Now what about overall arctic ice volume? Using US navy data the volume of the ice is increasing and the ice is expanding. [6] "The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice." [6]So the thin ice is being defeated, this implies that the ice is getting thicker, this requires colder temperatures, this is an "arrow to the knee" for global warming proponents. How can ice get thicker under warmer temperatures, and how can formerly thin ice get thicker? 3. Global cooling? Now, this is generally pushed to the side in most climate change debates. Well yaddy blah blah blank my liberal science teacher said X. People are mainly going of knee jerk reactions look towards the "majority". Ice in the caps are one way both sides look at the global warming debacle. New data has come to light, we see the earth is no longer "warming", assuming those faulty data sets are correct, but cooling. [7] Now if the things near metal buildings are seeing cooling, this means the earth must be REALLY cooling down to show a decrease. "As Robert Felix just reported in his authoritative iceagenow.com, on various days is June of 2009 there were record low temperatures in 18 states; record low temperatures in 15 states; record low temperatures in 24 states; record low temperatures in 11 states; record low max temperatures in 20 states; record low temperatures in seven states; and record low temperatures in 10 states." [8]4. Even if the earth is warming, it may be natural. http://www.forbes.com... (page two graph)Due to the predicatable fluctuations, we can assume we could predict the cycles and it also shows that global warmign is also caused by a natural cause. Also:http://www.isil.org... (half way down graph[s])This also shows the earths temperture is constantly changing, and we can assume it is a natural fluctuation. With this data, the resolution is negated as even if you prove the global wamring scare, you need to explain the natura fluctuations which easily explain it. If global warmign exists, the governments CANT do anything to stop natural cycles, hence it would be a waste of reasources. 5. Economic harms of regulations First if we assume humans create this phenomona, we must ask what is the cause? The most common claim is human CO2 and oil usage, natural gas etc. But these regulations DO harm the economy. Many of tese regulations are huge costs to buisness, this is hard on them as now they must eiher give up or find ways to compensate (fire workers, or declare bankrupsy), and then no body is helped. These regulations hurt buisness by raising costs, and higher costs to buisness hurt the companies, econ 101. Further, many of these regulations outsoruce jobs for the reason above, or actually make it impossible to do X here, so they do X in china as they can actually do stuff there. One perfect regulaton is the congress' plan to regulate 85% of energy, this harms big time. It is estimated to lease 85% of our energy, and prevent them from drilling on areas that could sustain us from Saudi Arabias imports for 30 years. [9] So these regulations FORCE other countries to take our supplies, well not take, but replace and indirectly take out jobs. Sorry, tese regulaitosn hurt us. CONCLUSION: My case disproves global warming claims, and proves if global warming occurs it is likely natural, hence if it doesn't exist its a waste of time, if it does exist but is natural its a waste of time, if the earth is cooling it is a waste of time, and if it hurts the economy it is one colstly downside. My case esentially refutes my opponents, and I used facts. I urge a CON vote. _________[1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://onforb.es... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly... [7] http://on.wsj.com... [8] http://bit.ly... [9] http://bit.ly... [10] http://bit.ly...

The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8]As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case."Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -StupidapeThis appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9]The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic. In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. Sources:[8] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[10] https://www.epa.gov...

So many people have asking me that does the bad environment is causing because of the modern technology? The answer is not really or strongly No! The topic is going to be telling by 3 main reason. First, the pollution. There are so many kinds of the pollution like: air pollution, or noise pollution. Next, because of the tall building. As we can see now a day there are a lot of tall building like skyscraper. After the smoke blow up to the are that are near the building the smokes are not going to leave away. Then, the construction of some industry are build near the city. This is the very important cause that make the environment is bad.

Climate change is a real and threatening danger. Uptake in sever weather, natural disasters, stagnant food production, dwindling water resources, melting polar caps and glaciers, and extinction of animals, insects, coral that depend on specific temperatures to survive. It is a danger that has been scientifically linked to excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays from the sun that should be reflected back into space and the heat and carbon from our own industrial complexes trapped under the layer they created.. Critics say that the Earth has experience climate change before during times that modern humans were not even alive and therefor human activity can not be causing climate change, even if it exists. But look at what CAUSES climate change. Excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays. In the past this was created by volcanic activity, run away continent wide wildfires, and a massive meter impact throwing millions of tons of dust, dirts, smoke/carbon, and greenhouses gases into the air, blocking out the sun to where very little light reach the Earths surface to heat it and causing an ice age. Critics say that if we ARE having climate change why are we not getting colder then ? Because once those events happened, they ended. Once all the trees were burned down, there was nothing to burn, once the volcano released all its pressure and stopped erupting, no more heat and carbon/greenhouse gases that trap heat were being produced. There was only one big meteor, one big explosion that created a layer of carbon and greenhouse gases that enveloped the whole world.. Imagine that layer is a house. All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors locked shut, and the heater is set at 90degrees and the stove is on medium heat, going for hours on end. There maybe a few leaks here and there but all in all the house soon becomes unbearably hot and stuffy. You turn off the stove and heater so it won't get any hotter and eventually the house cools because of the leaks. May take a very long time but it happens. Now imagine instead of turning off the heater and stove, you leave them as they are or ,being generous, turn them down a bit BUT not a lot and they are still going strong for hours and hours. Imagine you add a roommate that has their own heater and stove going as well, and then another, and then another, so on and so forth. The house becomes unbearably hot even faster with each new addition. Even if all of you turned down the heaters and stoves down to the BARE MINIMUM NEEDED TO SURVIVE, with all of the trapped heat from before, the added people adding their own heat/emissions on top of that, the heat will not dissipate before you all die of heat stroke, starvation cause no food plants can grow in such hot and water parched conditions, or oxygen deprivation cause their are no plants to turn the heat and exhale ( carbon emissions) into breathable air. Humans are highly adaptable and we could probably hold out for a few generations after the collapse of the earths ecosystem but eventually we to would have to adapt or perish. So why wait till a bottom of the barrel crisis before enforcing laws and society norms that control our population rise ALONG with strategies to curb and reduce our resource guzzling ways ? It has been scientifically tested and projected by many scientists that Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. Right now we are a bit above 7 billion and grow by about a 200,000 a year. One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed." According to population biologist Joel Cohen of Columbia University, other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity are the nitrogen cycle, available quantities of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and many other systems work together, all interwoven to create and sustain life on Earth. Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote. The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually UNDER OPTIMUM SUSTAINED CLIMATE AND WEATHER, something that is slowly becoming rare around the world. But pushing that point aside, thats enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion omnivores under US standards of consumption, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned if EVERYONE became vegetarians. But because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, so the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion and be more around 8 or 9 billion. OH wait .... We are already almost there ! and the world population is expected to hit 8 billion by 2024. Our bulging population not only threatens us but every living thing on planet Earth. Population control methods MUST be part of ALL climate change, sustainable resource, and green funding policies. A grain of sand my seem tiny but added together they become a huge desert that can swallow us whole.

Alright. I think, from seeing your argument, this debate will come down to if this is really a threat to worry about. I'm going to start with your statement about the Medieval Climate Optimum. I admit, I was a bit unspecific when I stated that. What I meant to say was, the last time there was a major increase in temperature. The other instances of warming you mentioned are just building up to where we are now. As you probably know, the Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Climate Optimum. And, although it may not be entirely documented, it is very likely this would have happened with or without humans. The earth just works like that. Take the Ice Age for example. After the Little Ice Age, there was a period of warmth, as to 'recover' from the cold times. The Earth isn't known to have experienced a major Ice Age other than THE Ice Age, so we can't find a pattern in that. But if we look at the Little Ice Age, we may still be recovering from the Ice Age millions of years ago. In response to your comment about the Winter being less harsh, the population increasing, etc, you have yet to prove they are untrue. You have yet to prove them untrue. You acknowledge the Medieval Climate Optimum happened, therefore there simply isn't a reason they would be untrue. Despite many of the myths, there isn't as much evidence that disasters will increase as you would think. Warming will not cause a significant increase in temperatures around the Equator. Only closer to the Poles. There will not be a significant increase in natural disasters, because most disasters will happen near the Equator, anyway. Would it not be true that, heat would cause evaporation? And evaporation would cause precipitation? And precipitation would combat droughts? On the topic of floods, man has time to prepare. There is a good chance it will be another, at the least, 50 years until we will know for a fact our cities are in danger of flooding. As naive as it sounds, I'm sure a large wall, much like the levees that are used to protect many hurricane-prone areas, could effectively protect our vulnerable cities from floods. Reports have shown that the ocean levels have increased at a steady rate for the past century or so. Every decade, another inch. Simple as that. There are no reports of any drastic rise in the sea levels since the Global Warming theory was released. Simple as that. It is true that the glaciers would begin to melt, but, although there has not been much evidence of this so far, I've done a bit of research on the subject. Heat would cause more precipitation. More precipitation would, scientifically speaking, add on to the glaciers. "The industrial revolution began in the 18th and 19th centuries...as I stated before climates started to rise around 1860." Climates have been rising and rising long before the 18th century. Chances are, it was hardly significant enough to document back then. CO2 is a minor factor in the entire global warming picture. All of these energy efficient cars and other environmentally-friendly solutions like that, I will admit they are great for the environment. But, there is little man can do to prevent Global Warming from happening. Simple as that. I eagerly await your response.

Yes, I have said "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that"and the CO2 emission is nowhere the same now as they were back in 1945. However, what I was trying to prove was that even though there was a huge increase in the CO2 emission in 1945, the climate didn't increase which suggests to me that greenhouse effect might not be the case which proves global warming. I wouldn't call global warming the cause of the melting of the glaciers. I would use the term climate change. And yes you are right, that is not the only explanation.I have given you evidences in the next paragraph about the Inconvenient Truth and ClimateGate. In this argument, you have failed to give me another reason why you believe that global warming exists. In the next argument you make, please do include why you think global warming exists rather than just pointing out the mistakes I have made.

"Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]" Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination.(1) Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. (2). Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture (3). I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. While his use of the 2007 supreme court case is commendable, critics of the designation of CO2 as a pollutant such as S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."(4). The paragraph that my opponent dismisses as a red herring, "A threat to humanity... Syrian Regime. (5)" is actually not a red herring. The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change". I'd also like to point out that my opponent's argument "Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems." is somewhat inaccurate. Granted Water's pH has went down from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 which is in terms of technical semantics an increase in acidity. [However pH is measured from 1-14 with 1-6 being acidic, 7 as neutral, and 8-14 as basic or alkaline. (5)] Also this decrease in pH has been expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report World Group 1, which also states that the oceans are alkaline not acidic. (6) My opponent also contends that marine life would be screwed up because of this decrease in alkalinity. However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.(7). (1) http://www.aaas.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) https://www.google.com.sg... (4) http://www.populartechnology.net... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://www.ipcc.ch... (7) http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu...