Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

The measures taken to combat "Global Warming" could potentially result in more harm than good. A peer-reviewed study by David Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek examines the costs associated with the production of ethanol from corn, switchgrass, and wood, revealing that many aspects of the production and distribution processes are often overlooked by proponents of ethanol. The report is the most comprehensive to date, highlighting the complexities of alternative energy sources.

Another peer-reviewed report discusses the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. It meets the minimum requirements for storing nuclear waste for 10,000 years, as per the scientists' conclusion. However, the report also suggests additional measures to enhance safety and calls for further reviews, which may prevent it from ever receiving a license to operate. This is due to the stringent regulations, protests, and lawsuits that make nuclear energy artificially cost-prohibitive.

Hydro and wind power have geographical limitations, being only useful within a 100-200 mile radius. While not inherently problematic, the initial costs for these energy sources are exorbitant, making them unsuitable for third-world countries. Battery-powered electric and hybrid vehicles have a battery life of 8 years or 80,000 miles, with replacement costs ranging from $3,000 to $7,000. These batteries contain hazardous materials, and improper disposal could lead to significant environmental damage.

Environmentalists argue that eliminating fossil fuels is essential to prevent catastrophic consequences, such as rising sea levels and desertification. However, without viable alternatives, the reduction in fossil fuel production and consumption will disproportionately affect the poorest populations, leading to potential starvation as fuel prices skyrocket. The goal of eliminating fossil fuels without a cost-effective alternative is misguided, as alternative energy sources like hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon power are still in experimental stages and require significant infrastructure development.

In conclusion, the push to eliminate fossil fuels without a viable alternative could result in millions of deaths, particularly among the poorest populations, as they struggle to adapt to higher fuel prices and the loss of essential resources. The environmental movement's goal of eliminating fossil fuels in the next 20 years may have unintended consequences, exacerbating global poverty and suffering.

I am sorry that my theory was not more well received. I admit that capturing Satan to harness his flatulence for fuel is no easy task. Currently, I am researching Arabic and Persian grimoires for methods whereby I can bind Satan to my control, but so far I have only found methods corresponding to various jinns and spirits of the planets and stars. Inshallah, I will be able to find more in time. Once I am able to summon Satan and bind him into a lamp, I will then feed him Taco Bell until he is about to burst! Then I will play a continuous loop of the call to prayer. The devil will be unable to move away, but will be unable, also, to control his malevolent gassy-pants! ERGO, I will have a siphone attached to the open part of the lamp into large canister drum. I will hire somone to seal the drum once full, then we will repeat the process until I have millions upon millions of drums of devil gas! Then these can be sent to Islamic scientists for research purposes, getting us off of evil American and Russian Kufr fossil fuel! Allah hu-akbrar! Valiya writes, "a religion that has such balderdash cannot provide any solution for mankind"! How untrue! A modern, scientific worldview which rejects the existence of a gassy Satan is no science at all, and it is certainly not modern! I would hesitate to call such assertions "balderdash", for they are clearly the holy truths of the Hadith. In my own dawah, I always begin by telling people the Islam teaches a farting Satan, whereas Christianity and Judaism do not, demonstrating the clear superiority of Islam over these wicked faiths. Someday, when science discovers evidence of the devil's flatulence, I will laugh at them in derision for disbelieving in the Hadith! When Steven Hawkwing rolls out in his wheelchair and says in robot voice, "I was wrong. The Satans fart. All the time they do it. Inshallah! Allah hu Akbar!" I ask you O Nasrani and you, O Yehudi: why does not the Injil, the Taurat and the Zabur not have farting devil? Maybe because your scribes have falsified Allah's words! Truly, a fateful doom awaits you upon the last day, for Allah hath made clear the devil has a serious case of the tubbly-wubblies in the tummy! Truly, Moses taught a farting devil, as did Jesus, and Lut, and Joseph! But you have edited these out of your records, to hide the truth from humanity! You are right, though, Valiya: Islamic economics is certainly superior to the Kufr West and Kufr East --- especially when we consider the massive diversity of wealth that exists in Daar-al-Islam vs. Daar-al-Harb. Whereas the Kufr relies predominantly upon fuel and energy for their wealth, Muslims innovates in all fields, and it has been this way for centuries. Where has most of modern technology come from? Islam! Modern medicine? Islam! The space program? Islam! Who ended slavery first? Islam! Who gave women full equal rights with men first? Islam! Who had first gay cowboy? Islam! Islam is the clearly superior deen in every way. Without Islam, the modern world would be in peril! Why do you think it is that the good Muslim, Buzz Lightyear, was first in space, and not the wicked Kufr, Tom Hanks? While Tom Hanks was stranded on island talking to a bloodied football named Wilson, Buzz Lightyear was performing wudu and salat in the sea of tranquility! Take that, you wicked gringos! Justin Timberlake is Muslim! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...

I am arguing that we need high gas prices to get off of foreign oil, because people like Jimmy Carter and Al Gore have been telling us that we have got to find an alternative, but only now that we are being slammed on at the pump are we taking this advice seriously. The average American commute is 29 miles a day. The electric car could meet 90% of Americans' needs. A person could then recharge the car at night while they were sleeping, drive to work, do some errands and drive home. In the beginning of cars, electric cars were the car of choice because they were not as hard to start up and did not emit smog of any kind. The only reason why oil took over is because Detroit car companies had invested in the oil and slowly diminished the number of electric cars until there were none left. Just before the electric car lines were removed again in 2003, a battery was nearly at the point of being largely manufactured that would allow the car to travel 450 miles on a single charge. That is plenty for all of the population with the exception of the occasional road trip. A car engine is much more expensive than a battery in an electric car and requires much more maintenance. As for global warming, its basic science. Taking carbon samples from ice in Antarctica, carbon dioxide can be measured for 650,000 years. We also know the temperature due to how the ice was frozen and refrozen. High carbon levels correlate with high temperatures and low carbon levels correlate with low temperatures. It is known that carbon is emitted from gas driven cars and it is also known that carbon will trap heat. Though I did speak about electric cars, my point was that car companies don't want to admit that the oil age is coming to an end. We need to have cars run on all sorts of different fuels like clean burning bio fuels (some are harmful but some are not), electric (preferably from clean sources but even from coal the emissions go down), hydrogen. The point is that we need diversity. Diversity is important because that way we don't end up like we are now, using only one fuel and not having enough of it. If we create many fuels, if one is running low there are other ways.

they've made a lot of head way with nuclear energy safety since the disasters of the past, such as Chernobyl Fukushima. that is why even though other nations are expanding the technology, you dont hear much about problems or disasters. those two incidents are only two problems in the decades and decades of nuclear energy. every technology has problems, air pollution, oil spills etc.... but nuclear while not perfect is good enough and better than the others. this will reduce air pollution and give us free energy. in fact, the two incidents mentioned didn't have major death tolls, and have relatively minor burden on people. our current situation with air pollution kills millions every year. other nations are having a lot of success with this technology and will have a leg up over us.

I would like to begin my final round by congratulating Pro on a lively and challenging debate. I'm particularly glad that we were able to avoid getting bogged down by semantics, disputed definitions and the like and have a robust discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear energy. A number of matters have been considered, but essentially most of the disagreement has been concerning two issues - whether nuclear power is financially viable, and whether it is safe. If the answer to these questions is yes, Pro has made his case. If the answer is no, then we have to conclude that atomic power is not beneficial. Is nuclear power financially viable? Pro has provided several graphs which look quite impressive, yet fail to tell the true story. The LCOE figures presented in round two appear to show nuclear power in a favorable light compared to all other sources, and yet as I have pointed out, there is no indication that they take into account the massive subsidies and post-production costs which falsely lower the apparent cost per unit of production. The two graphs Pro presents in round four do claim to include startup costs, however the very significant costs associated with decommissioning of the reactor at the end of its life do not appear to be factored into the equation. In round 4, Pro quotes Ellen Vancko of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support of his case. Unfortunately, the source of the quote is not given, and I am unable to match the quoted text using Google search. But there is no worse source that Pro could possibly quote on the subject. Ellen Vancko and her organization have published some of the most detailed and scathing criticisms of the financial viability of nuclear power to be found anywhere. I will finish my critique of Pro's arguments on this topic by reproducing a little of what a press report which announced the release of their 146 page study of the topic has to say on the subject: "...subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining to long-term waste storage. Added together, these subsidies often have exceeded the average market price of the power produced." It goes on to say "The cost of this technology continues to escalate despite billions in subsidies to both existing and proposed plants. Instead of committing billions in new subsidies that would further distort the market in favor of nuclear power, we should focus on more cost-effective energy sources that will reduce carbon emissions more quickly and with less risk".[1] Is nuclear power safe? In round four, Pro makes the statement "I'm not sure why my opponent keeps arguing about the deadly risks of nuclear power when I've pointed out several times it's [sic] safety record". The reason I keep arguing about it is because the safety record Pro is suggesting is a fabrication of atomic energy interests, and pro appears to have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Let's look at Pro's claims one by one: * Three Mile Island was "fully contained" This was indeed the official line from the power plant operators and the early studies. But "A new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the first two years after the Three Mile Island accident in Dauphin and surrounding counties."[2] How could this be? Well, this same article also reports disturbing events well away from the supposedly "contained" disaster area, including: "Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney "just dried up and disappeared" -- an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure."[3] This and many other experiences have become the subjects of more than one book. * Fukushima resulted in no deaths This is perhaps the most brazen lie of all to come out of pro-nuclear groups. It has been observed that "lower levels of radioactivity take time to result in cancer and other illnesses - that there is a 5 to 40 year 'incubation period'"[4]. It is not yet four years since the Fukushima disaster, so the worst is still to come. Quoting the same article, here are a few more estimates and observations: Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk predicts "a death toll of more than a million". Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry senior vice president, has said: "The health impacts to the Japanese will begin to be felt in several years and out to 30 or 40 years from cancers. And I believe we're going to see as many as a million cancers over the next 30 years because of the Fukushima incident in Japan." Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is also quoted: "The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain ... radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local." * Chernobyl was the result of major design deficiencies and bad safety measures Chernobyl's meltdown occurred in 1986. Fukushima was 25 years later, in 2011, just three and a half years ago. This demonstrates that in spite of the supposed vast improvements that have been made, disastrous failures still can occur, threatening hundreds of thousands to millions of lives with each event. The supposed safety record of the nuclear industry is based on denials and cover-ups, not on fact. Concluding remarks: Pro has made several references to the cost and safety of nuclear power compared to old technologies such as fossil fuels. There is little point in debating any of this, as we appear to be in agreement that fossil fuels should be a thing of the past. The choice, then, comes down to nuclear energy or renewables, such as wind and solar. Of these, not only has nuclear only survived for over fifty years because of massive subsidies and ignoring hundreds of billions of dollars in costs due to accidents, but the costs of production are continually rising, and the demands on the public to subsidize these facilities are becoming intolerable. In contrast, the cost of solar PV has plummeted over a 30 year period "from $22 dollars in 1980 down to under $3 today" [5] (2010 figure). According to the same source, "battery prices are dropping exponentially too". With far less propping up from the public purse than nuclear has received for decades, renewable energy technologies such wind and solar power can become cheaper than both fossil fuels and nuclear. And they can achieve it with minimal scarring of the landscape, and without leaving a radioactive legacy that will last long after humans no longer inhabit the planet. As I have referred to before, countries across Europe are turning away from dirty, dangerous nuclear energy - it is just not worth the risk to our planet or our people. Nuclear energy is not beneficial. References: [1] http://www.ucsusa.org... [2] http://pittsburgh.about.com... [3] http://www.southernstudies.org... [4] http://www.theecologist.org... [5] http://rameznaam.com...

Alright, one last thanks to Con for a riveting debate. Let's start out by looking at Con's specific regulations. I'm glad that Con specified some of these though, admittedly, he spends little time elucidating what adhering to the 7 major statutes means. I will assume, however, that this will increase inspection practices, and that they will be required to disclose what chemicals are in their fracking fluids. These are still insufficient. Cementing the wells won't work either, since cement can still crack over time,[42] not to mention that the list of problems include “poor thread connections, corrosion, thermal stress cracking, and other causes” that aren't addressed by this.[43] Nor will the basic issues be addressed, such as leakage through soil (due to its basic porous properties), the process of contaminating that soil, and of creating fractures that can cause earthquakes, all of which are dropped and inherent to fracking. Distance from water sources can only do so much as well. It doesn't really address the issue that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are contaminated by the practice when it's done safely.[8] Con wants examples of regulations failing. Here's a few. In Pennsylvania alone, there have been 3,331 violations of regulations in place since 2009.[44] Con doesn't suggest that they cannot dispose of their water through disposal wells, a regulated practice that can also easily contaminate groundwater.[45] Even if Con is right that this will make each individual fracking practice better, regulations will just force an increase in the number of drilling sites and rate of fracking, as it has in Colorado, increasing the harms.[46] Contamination by accident is sufficient, since it also won't be solved by regulation.[47, 48] Only a ban effectively prevents these. Onto the key issues of the debate. 1. Air pollution a. CO2 Con drops my point that oil is also dredged up through fracking, and that it comes with volatile gas infusions that make it highly explosive.[25] This challenges his CO2 benefit, but more importantly, it presents a large safety concern. It also mitigates any economic benefit he seeks to get, due to the costs required to use it. Even if there's some reduction in CO2 emissions, it's far lower than Con initially cited. It's also low impact, considering that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.[26] b. Methane I already showed how Con's sources on methane leakage were faulty. The sole links he provides either don't address methane leaks (his 3 and 19), or are too short term, biased, and selective (his 8). Con has not defended any of his links. My links stand uncontested, and don't suffer from any of these problems. Con seems to believe that all he has to do is present a source that disagrees with mine in order to show uncertainty, but this is absurd. Con needs sufficient doubt to throw all of my evidence into uncertainty, and he has not presented anything that would do so. The best he's done is show that emissions may be 0.5% less than a dangerous threshold he himself admits exists. That means the best case scenario is one where the benefit is minimal and uncertain, whereas the worst includes 60 tons of methane per hour rising into the atmosphere from each well.[49] c. Health Con dropped my argument that health risks come from just being close to drilling sites, which aren't solved by any of Con's regulations.[23] 2. Water pollution a. Through fracking Con drops my point that contamination has already occurred in 4 states with present regulations, and provides no warrants that his regulations will solve.[35] He drops my argument that the EPA, which would be the agency in charge of this regulation, is a terrible regulator, and misses obvious contaminants.[36] He also drops that certain contaminants will always leech into the soil, remaining after recycling the water.[37] b. Through disposal Con doesn't seek to ban disposal wells, which, as I mentioned earlier, can easily contaminate groundwater. Even if recycling is made mandatory, the practice doesn't solve for the harms. He ignores the fact that wastewater is still generated from recycling, and that that wastewater is highly concentrated with toxins.[34] He drops that the recycling process leaves behind highly concentrated radioactive solids that also require disposal.[33] Con drops my point that abandoned wells lead to massive methane leaks, which none of his regulations solves for.[19] Each of these show failures with his case that don't exist in mine. 3. Earthquakes Con drops this entire contention. By itself, this is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Look to my [8], which shows how the process works and is integral to fracking. The safety and economic harms of earthquakes are immense, and the fact that this has gone unaddressed is just baffling. Economically,, it forces huge insurance boosts on local peoples.[50] On a human level, it destroys homes and kills people.[51] Environmentally, those quakes can easily release pockets of methane, allowing all of it to escape into the atmosphere. In other words, it's a huge, diverse harm with a wide area of effect. 4. Economic harms a. Local economies These harms are most certainly topical. This is analysis of one of the many impacts the process of fracking. Whether my opponent views it as important or not is irrelevant to its topicality. All I have to prove is that it's reason enough for a legislative ban. First off, the ability for towns to ban fracking only exists in New York.[52] Con is not requiring this nationwide. Second, if towns could choose whether a fracking company comes in or not, it just means they accepted the risk. That doesn't mean the harm is any less a harm. Third, at best, this just means they are capable of escaping the harms if they have enough foresight. Fracking companies represent quite a big influx of money into numerous towns, making it difficult to refuse them.[53] There's incentive there to ignore the long term harms. Fourth, Con can't have it both ways. If all towns ban fracking, then effectively the process is banned, making it equivalent to my case. If some towns ban fracking, other towns will still be harmed as I described. Con drops the links to the spread of ghost towns and shut downs of local businesses.[38] Con also drops the point about stealing water from local businesses, further contributing to their closure.[17] So Con never contests the harms at all, only trying to mitigate them by saying that towns have agency. At most, that's a lower likelihood of a terrible impact that only he has. b. Short vs. long term Con makes the unwarranted claim “shale gas is a bridge from really crappy coal to really good green stuff.” He drops all of my warrants and evidence, which show that having a fossil fuel that is a cheap and easy source of energy keeps us dependent on fossil fuels for longer. There's no reason to believe that, with this around, we are going to treat green energy as worthy of more resources. I've shown, with copious amounts of evidence,[10, 11, 25, 40] how natural gas has changed our perception of green energy. Whether things can “change overnight” is irrelevant. I'm not saying that they will, though his lack of response to my cost points is glaring, since it suggests that it is an entirely affordable process. But that transition has only slowed down in the presence of a cheap and easy source of fuel. Our increased need for more energy is a reason to pursue renewable energy with more fervor, not double down on a limited source. Con states that bans will badly affect the economy. First, those increases to taxes and harms to GDP are able to be absorbed, even if they do happen. A state can still continue to function, unlike the small towns. Second, it's based on a set of assumptions that make it the worst-case scenario rather than the actual likely outcome.[54] Third, this assumes that no energy industry would come to replace it. The green energy sector would skyrocket in the absence of this alternative, and as it's already accelerating, this would be a big deal.[55] Considering job growth nationwide was up 38,600 in one quarter in 2013, this surge in growth could easily outdistance any drop from fracking.[56] Conclusion: I've shown that the environmental, health, and economic harms of fracking are too large to allow this practice to continue. Each is enough by itself to warrant a ban on fracking. I've shown that Con's alternative strategy of regulating the industry is insufficient, and that the harms of a ban are minimal at worst. The best he can do is present minimal doubt with faulty evidence, and then claim that it detracts from a solid, uncontested set of evidence. Don't believe this audacious, unwarranted claim. Vote Pro. 42.http://newyork.sierraclub.org...43.http://www.pnas.org...44.http://stateimpact.npr.org...45.http://www.texastribune.org...46.http://ecowatch.com...47.http://fracking.einnews.com...48.http://www.sciencedaily.com...49.http://www.sltrib.com...50.http://www.bizjournals.com...51.http://www.dallasnews.com...52.http://truth-out.org...53.http://articles.chicagotribune.com...54.http://www.denverpost.com...55.http://www.worldwatch.org...56.http://theenergycollective.com...

In this 3rd round the is really two main things you should look are. --- To please my opponent I will drop my argument about the diseases, but we still have to issues with the fact that the glaciers will melt causing the sea levels to rise. Also the fact that if we let this continue all our fresh water will run into the ocean and we will have no water to drink, and we all know that water is a basic need for not just humans but animals and other organisms on the earth. If my opponent brings up the fact that we can just use desalinization methods but that is ridiculously expensive and time consuming. --- We all so have the issue the fact that the places that have the most poverty in them are at the end of the food chain, that they are falling short in the zero-sum energy game that is happening with energy. if we switched to green jobs then we would reduce and ultimately get rid of the zero-sum game that is happening. Green jobs will do this, and it will give jobs to the people in poverty. Even if they don't have an education, they can work as a janitor or something like that. There are many small jobs that they can do. Also, because these are renewable energy sources these jobs will always exist, unlike oil which will eventually run out leaving millions unemployed. --- That is why I have to stand in firm opposition of the resolution.

Contention 1: International Law and Global Hegemony On August 1st of 2005, George W. Bush signed a Presidential Decree stating that NASA's space shuttle program will no longer be funded. Here is President Bush on the decision. "We cannot find any justification to continue the deficit funding of a program that has no application other that proving that with enough money America can do anything," said Bush. (. http://www.spacedaily.com...) As I brought up in my last round the US has had to rely on the Russian Space shuttle program to get anything into space as NASA no longer has a Shuttle Program. So we can see that with us trying to impliment this economic plan it will be blocked by the Russians as it violates the Treaty as it will also be backed by the other 100 nations who also signed the treaty. Though Russia may sabber rattle they can still break the deal if they precieve it as a threat and many times, even when the US has tried to defend Europe with Russian missles, Russia has acted strongly against which even means that the Russians will precieve something like that as a threat could one only imagine what they will think when they hear that the US is developing nuclear energy on the moon? Pro has also dropped by China overtaking the US in Hegemony argument so I extend that across the board. Contention 2: He-3 from the moon not worth it, alternatives exist. My opponent wants more sourcing, then I shall give him a source that he was content with earlier and here is a quotation from it that states practiacally the same thing. "deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. In a plasma contained in a tokamak, Close stresses, all the nuclei in the fuel get mixed together, so what's most probable is that two deuterium nuclei will rapidly fuse and produce a tritium nucleus and proton. That tritium, in turn, will likely fuse with deuterium and finally yield one helium-4 atom and a neutron. In short, Close says, if helium-3 is mined from the moon and brought to Earth, in a standard tokamak the final result will still be deuterium-tritium fusion. " (. http://www.technologyreview.com...) I had explained this one in an earlier round that we get this from taking the He-3 out of natural gas in order to increase the combustion of natural gas. This leads to the 5 billion bottles of He-3 that we get rendering this point useless. I extend across my Li-6 argument as my opponent dropped it in the last round. Contention 3: Price Tag I understand that it can be done cheaper, but the rate that NASA, a government agency can do it for is more expensive and via the resolution, the only option you can take is NASA's $10,000 per pound.

I think that it is impossible for the human race to overpopulate the earth - considering our resources* - if we increase the population gradually and in a regulated manner to allow the vegetation to keep up with converting rock into biomass which can be eaten. Of course we can outnumber the space, but that is not what I am stipulating. I believe that so long that there is Space to literally live, then the world can produce enough resources to sustain us. If we lived in the planet, then we can house ourselves aware from the fruit production, then we can maximize efficiency. Despite the fact that the earth would thus become smaller, via using structures to create multiple layers of living space with less material, we could still increase the worlds habitable zone-age.. :S Thus. Human's can not overpopulate the planet to a point where it cannot provide, while we can still move about and function happily.*** the argument*** I believe that the planet can sufficiently feed potentially hundreds of trillions of people.

Well, you dont seem to adress my other points here, like the pope , who you cited and being a firm believer in this theory, who I just showed you quoted on Dec 11 as coming out firmly against it, saying The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. I am going to give you a little more insight into why this "movement" which is being taken very seriously by many, is quite simply scare mongering Here is a link which lists over 600 , yes 600 "disaters" that are being casued by global warming, according to the silly people pushing the notion http://www.heartland.org... Do you really believe that CO2 emissions are going to cause all of that? Can you maybe understand that sometimes people use SCARE tactics in order to get you to do things, like spend money, or vote for them. This is important to understand in life, and when you get to vote. Now, I am going to change the subject a little bit Why am I so opposed to this theory, when I am a huge fan of renewable energy, solar, and hydrogen, which is the future of energy? Becuase it is the wrong argument- and easily disproven What are the REAL problems with fossil fuels? (1) REAL POLLUTION - air pollution (SOx. NOx, Unburned hydrocarbons, ozone)and water pollution (just 1 drop of oil makes a gallon of water undrinkable) If you look at cities like Mexico City and in China- its HORRIBLE (2) WAR OVER OIL - why are we in Iraq? (3) NATIONAL SECURITY - We cant keep depending on the likes of the OPEC and Chavez for our economic lifeblood What are the REAL SOULTIONS? (1) Solar energy, other renewables, and nuclear energy (2) Higher efficiency in our usage of energy (3) Hydrogen powered hybrid vehicles, planes and transportation As much as the "global warming" crowd supports these things, rather that just saying we need to "stop" what we are doing or be "taxed" by someone, then I wont argue with them- they are good for my business, after all. But the bottom line is that the SCIENCE of Global Warming is Wrong, dead wrong, and is a HOAX and SCARE TACTIC of Al Gore, the IPCC, and others who want to chastise the United States, and gain power and money for themselves Mankind emitted CO2 is NOT responsible in any measurable way for changes in our earth's climate. period. What is responsible ? the SUN! can we do anything about it ? NO! so DONT WORRY! DONT BE AFRAID! live your life

Dependence on the limited, and financially unstable, foreign oil supply is ruining both the economy and the environment. Harm: The constant use of fossil fuels to power internal combustion engines for means of transportation will only end in economic burdens, environmental maltreatment, and many negative effects of personal health, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and diabetes. Harm 1.Fossil fuels contribute to pollution Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, when burned, lead nearly immediately to damaging impacts on local environments. When left unchecked, the use of fossil fuels spread to national, and eventually, global environments. Citation: Environment And Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust, 2006, www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml Evidence: "Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution generated from the combustion of fossil fuels from many other sources, including the burning of coal and oil in power plants, incinerators, home heating oil, and construction equipment. The combustion of gas and diesel fuels produce greenhouse gases that are contributing to local, regional and global climatic changes." Inherency #1: The use of gas-powered cars is heavily implemented into the current system. Large automotive corporations would be reluctant to transition, thus stunting an electric vehicle market. The implementation of electric-powered vehicles means an effective cutback, and if pursued strongly enough, an entire extinction, of tailpipe emissions. Cars powered by motors produce zero emissions, while internal combustion engines continue to contaminate the global environment. Citation: U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE) Evidence: "EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, and PHEVs produce no tailpipe emissions when in all-electric mode." Harm 2.Gas-powered vehicles are significantly less efficient than electric vehicles Although new technology, electric vehicles surpass internal combustion engines in energy consumption significantly. The Honda CR-Z is currently rated the best miles per gallon vehicle- for gasoline-powered cars. In fact, it"s 10th, following the eight electric cars before it, which all exceed 100mpg (excluding the hybrid Prius at 42 mpg). Citation: U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE) Evidence: "Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge) and kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles are common metrics. Depending on how they're driven, today's light-duty EVs (or PHEVs in electric mode) can exceed 100 mpge and can drive 100 miles consuming only 25-40 kWh." For example, the Tesla Model S, a standard setting, electric vehicle, has an 85 kWh battery. On average, it costs $10.25 to charge from dead to full. A conventional vehicle, depending on gas prices, takes anywhere from $25-50 to fill up. In its absolute worst conditions (subzero temperatures, air conditioning on highest setting, constant acceleration, and city driving, one can still expect 240 miles on a single charge. As far as efficiency, electric cars travel further, on less energy. Citation: Tesla Motors, "Go Electric: Your Questions Answered ", 2015, http://my.teslamotors.com... Evidence: "Efficiency is thought of in terms of range: more efficient cars can drive farther on a gallon of gas or a kWh of electricity. The Tesla powertrain is more efficient at using energy than a combustion engine. Only about 2025% of the energy stored in gas actually turns the wheels. A Tesla is about three times more efficient." Inherency #2: The general public is not educated well enough on the harmful effects of the burning of fossil fuels. The scientific awareness of the populous is incomplete and unclear Inherency #3: The general view of electric cars is negative. Most people deem them "spineless" and "weak" because of their lack of aggressive engine power. Harm 3.Gas powered cars contribute massively to human health concerns. The burning of gas for transportation is not only killing the environment, but us, as humans, as well. The inhalation of carbon dioxide is scientifically linked to countless life-threatening diseases which can, and as scientists are founding out, are, linked to emissions exiting the tailpipe. Citation: Environment and Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle, http://www.ehhi.org... Evidence: "Scientific experts now believe the nation faces an epidemic of illnesses that are caused by air pollution. These illnesses include cardiovascular disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and diabetes." I will post further arguments in later rounds, but this is my opening set.


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Wind turbines serve as a valuable, eco-friendly, and effective energy source. Interestingly, it's estimated that 70 wind farms can supply power to around 1.3 million homes. With expanded capacity, these large-scale wind energy generators could potentially be the future of powering Australia, alongside solar energy. One can only imagine how the coal industry would react to this development.

My argument here will be brief and I will restate something that I might have misunderstood. If your thesis is : CAN we, according to nowadays technologies, achieve a leisure society in the next decades? Then the answer is yes on all fronts, except for the specific case that requires moral and creativity. Those, as for example, judges, advocates, policeman, musician, film makers/producers, etc, will still be in need of several years of practice and education. Therein lies the problems: Why would you bother if you are offered the possibility to achieve your life without as much as the tough of work crossing your mind? Why would you work for beings that passes their whole days achieving nothing? Why would you even be tempted to receive the education as you can afford a whole life of leisure? Another fact is that we might trust A.I. for basic security (and even more complex) functions. Personally, I do think they could achieve the whole security functions. Now, could you tell me one instance of where we had a nuclear power facility working without any personal to watch over? What would happen with a system breakdown, or a lack of power at a moment where it needs to be watched? This is a considerable roadblock, as a society without moral jurisdiction or entertainment will quickly fall into chaos. However, if your debate is based on: WILL we achieve it in the next few decades, then I'm afraid it won't happen, as too many factors would require massive amounts of change within the current society. First of all, China and India were mere examples of WHY it cannot happen. The fact is that you create a paradox, as being independent to money due to self-serving industry would require an enormous amount of money to create at first aspect. Energy creation and water filtering requires facilities that cannot be created and maintained, at first, by open-source project. As for a quick example, even if you consider heating carbon in an helium chamber to be easy, it cannot be done at home, as the prerequisite are not what we could call affordable for many that lives in in-development countries. As for food production, many of the enhancing soils capabilities do require GMO, which we do not know long-term effect on living organism, or technology that are, for the most part, still in the experimental phase. As for the medical AI, it does still require a doctor to enter the answers to the specific questions this one will need to establish a diagnostic, but this may indeed change in the next years.

I've switched to smaller text.0. EMP range can be tweaked based on the amount of energy one is fed.The EMP's, once again, are not targeting civilian life. They are only for established systems that may hinder this one.STUXNET is being used to hijack the Earth's energy reserves. It is not a monitoring device. The plan to use EMP's for "all other tech" refers to all other tech that threatens an open-source world(finance and militia)1.There are several mines around the world being run autonomously today. The issue, as you stated, is the threat they pose to the workforce. Therefore, many of these "automatic" mines aren't really automated to repair themselves, sort through the materials mined, or log how MUCH they mine.In our program, these mines will be automated to the fullest extent, even in separating and storing the materials. Even in repairing themselves and monitoring how much they mine.Distinguishing between different rare metals and minerals requires refined detection, of which most high powered sensors have the ability for.2 & 3."The renewable farms have to be built first"No. I have all the oil, coal, and nuclear energy to build as many farms as I need.4.The EMP's will be detonated simultaneously so that the communications grid used by "nation defense" in every nation goes dark. They won't be able to communicate the threat in the first place.The EMP's can wipeout the grid in seconds. The submarines can be hijacked via STUXNET.5. The volunteers hepling program the autonomous systems and infrastructures will not ask for payment. Any payment they recieve would be useless upon completing the project, since everything would be free and accessable by default. 6.STUXNET controls all nuclear systems and may very well disable them.War threats are of no consequence. This program is not being carried out by America or any other private business and they will not be awarded credit for the system update.I also fail to see the threat of wiping out every desert. Is there any civilization anywhere that wouldn't benefit from this system?7.Money, or rather profitable gain, does not cause incentive for creativity.In most cases, it actually hinders the creative process. I can prove this with studies funded by the Federal Reserve, but I'll let you do your own research."That's the problem with your society. No one has [an incentive] to do anything anymore." Precisely. Nobody is forced to do anything anymore. So is my system totalitarian or not?"If you are prepared for hundreds of years of energy, then no one will bother going to school in the meantime since they don't even have to work, and even if they get a basic education, who'll bother going to university, and who'll run the universities?"You have an interesting view of universities in terms of what they provide and why people attend them. They are not for turning learners into workers. Those are training centers and they aim to specialize individuals rather than generalize them. Specialization is offensive and puts a serious limit on what the brain is capable of learning. Unfortunately many government approved training centers are being advertised as "Universities". In our system, universities will have unlimited resources at their disposal, unhindered creative drive, and will not rely on accreditation. If you don't like University #35, then try out University #36. Education will be open-source and not totalitarian, as it is under today's system."It ends up like Idiocracy's commercially stupid population."I just watched this film for the purpose of the debate. Idiocracy shows a world where technology is somehow stupider than the civilization using it. My system uses only the best technology. This movie also has a part where the government finds the world's smartest man to solve all their technical problems, instead of relying on voting. Only then do things start to improve for the population.My system eliminates commercialization and the workforce both. "We weren't made by anyone, so we decide our own purpose and destiny."The fact that we exist means that we were in fact made.Whether we were made by divinity or nature, or whether these creators are one and the same, our bodies and minds have certain rules they must obey. If you do not get enough energy, you will die. There is not much of a decision there."And soylent green will never taste as good as normal food. It's an end to pleasure."Overstimulation makes the brain fire neurons and neurotransmitters more often, causing immunity and lowered response intensity. In short, overstimulation = inhibited pleasure. Like living off of food and hoping to get pleasure from it after doing it 3 times a day, every day, for 10 years.A Soylent diet not only assures an optimum daily intake of energy on an individual level, it allows people to only eat foods they take PLEASURE in and only as often as they want.9.For the 3rd time, the EMP's will not be used against civilian homes.The structure of the homes is a very serious problem. All humans need a senes of safety. It is one of the foremost preliminary steps in satisfying Maslow's pyramid.11.A black market wouldn't be very popular if it's slogan was ""We'll take out thoes pesky sensors so you have to navigate your car yourself". This system initiates no force once it has been programmed. The only force being used is to take the resources and energy needed for a worldwide access system, where anything can be mined, constructed, shipped, repaired, updated, or replaced on a whim.People won't be forced to have sensors in their vehicles, but this is a service very few would turn down.12.Nobody is making things for computers. Computers are making things for us.I've said 3 times now that there is no human labor force, and there is no force of human labor.Machines DO work for free and there's no task done by humans that machines cannot do faster, smarter, and with more accuracy. Including triple-bypass surgery.This entire system is automated, from the mining of resources, to the assembly, to the shipping, to the waste management and recycling.The only jobs left are the ones that require human creativity, such as software updates, personalization, product design, etc;Overall:I didn't start this debate to sulk over the purpose of live in a system that provides everything to everyone.On one side, you debate the feasability of the program, whether it's national defense, lack of resources, or shipping problems.On the other side, you attack the productivity of mankind in this system once it has been accomplished, whether it's creativity, incentive to repair the system, etc. I'd like to address these two concerns more at length in a futher debate, perhaps someting along the lines of "Dystopia or Utopia?". I'm confident that I can convince you not only the feasability of this program, but the positive effect it would have on the global population. I also apologize if I ever came off as condescending or insulting. I respect that you know enough about politics and technology to debate me on this.

corny get real I refer wind eaters as in the human body the wind turbines turn the wind into energy. Now to sum up my arguments. Firstly they are useful and efficient for the world and secondly they are Eco friendly. Thank for listening and I hope I have convinced you that Wind turbines are a good source of energy. There is the AIR of defeat.

The Public Forum Topic for January 2009 is as follows: Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. I stand to prove that this topic is stupid and will make for bad public forum debates. First: This is a heavily scientific topic, and few high school debaters are qualified to be an authority on it. Second: Public forum debated Alternative Energy in October 2008, and therefore another topic about alternative energy is superfluous. Also, Policy is currently debating a similar topic: (2008-2009) Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. Third: The majority of information from the topic comes from either Eco-friendly groups, or groups out to prove that Alternative Fuels are causing deforestation and other environmental woes. Information that would be valid to use in an actual Contention is few and far between. Therefore, this topic is stupid and will make for bad debates.

I was focusing on the USA, but things that benefit the world community ultimately can benefit the US, and so those can be considered. My opponent questions "Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use?" Simple answer is yes. Coal power 48% of our electricity [1], and provides about 174,000 jobs in the US [2]. Simply simply discontinuing the use of coal would put tens of thousands out of a job, and cut our electric grid almost in half. The blackouts would cripple most other businesses, since just about every business needs the lights on to work. Bringing in other energy sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) could minimize our personal use of coal, however the mining of coal for sale to other nations should still be allowed, since it will save 114,000 jobs (mining and transporting) and provide a massive amount of income for the US via exports, in upwards of $87 billion dollars [3][2]. Which is over $760,000 per worker (so the economics for it providing good paying jobs are there at market value). My opponent has brought up that coal harms our environment. I disagree with the word "harm." It doesn't "harm" the environment, it changes it. Some animals and plants are negatively impacted, some are positively impacted. The burning of coal releases CO2, which all plants need to survive, it is like their oxygen. So the burning of coal is basically giving plants "oxygen." The Ringtail cat, or Miners cat, is another animal that has benefited greatly from mines and miners. [4] Using the mines as safe spots from its predators and places to catch its prey with easy. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.sourcewatch.org... [3] http://www.globalcoal.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll go paragraph by paragraph: INHERENCY: Inherency was dropped by negative. SOLVENCY: My first argument was really a generic argument (for clarification). You claim that I do not get solvency (which is his big argument from last speech.) Therefore I would like to use my reserved right to add evidence to prove that solvency will be reached (still on first paragraph). -From: http://www.firstscience.com... -"Nuclear power is deeply unpopular while renewable energy sources – wind, solar and tidal – yield relatively little energy for their high cost. But nuclear fusion could render carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels obsolete by 2100." -This quote proves two things, 1) If congress keeps cutting costs, then we will lengthen the amount of time it takes to achieve fusion power… 2) By fossil fuels running out and getting more expensive… therefore we must increase the incentives of fusion power, which is the energy of the future. -(Same Source) -"Energy production from nuclear fusion has proven an insurmountable challenge so far. Yet scientists are now saying that plans for larger and more sophisticated reactors around the world could finally make this possible in 50 years time. Is this more than just wishful thinking?" -This proves that we can't be cutting the funding for fusion power ESPECIALLY NOW. If we substantially increase the energy incentives by increasing funding, these "larger and more sophisticated reactors" will be created if the plan is passed. The ITER is the head of fusion development, but the US must do its part and if Congress cuts this spending (that should be overturned and increased by passing this plan), then fusion power will only be prolonged. The question is not IF solvency will be reached, but when. The sooner this funding can go through the sooner the energy crisis can be over (because fusion power will end the crisis). This is proven by the estimates made by Chris Warrick (the UK Atomic Energy Authority) "You need 50 megawatts of power to heat it and you should get around 5,000 megawatts out." (Next paragraph)--> The whole argument about "hidden agendas" is ridiculous. The CHANCE of hidden agendas does not make adequate grounds to vote down the plan. Furthermore, you have to see that the ONLY agenda that these scientists need to stick to is the agenda of finding usable fusion energy… that's it. The fact that there is a group of people being made to create fusion energy seems to be enough to see that they are going to have the agenda of creating fusion energy. ALSO, my opponent has not offered what these other agendas could be AND how they will harm anyone. This argument carries no weight whatsoever. Solvency was proven to be met two paragraphs ago… Simply cross-apply it here. (www.fas.org argument)--> This argument does not link to ANYTHING that has to do with fusion energy. If you go to the specific website of where he got this quote, it mentions fusion energy a whopping ZERO times. Furthermore, it never says HOW MUCH water would need to be boiled AND there is no link to how this would harm society. This argument continues to carry no weight… --> First of all, the evidence mentioned has already been proven insufficient to proving anything… Furthermore, my opponent has yet to show how boiling water (still unsure about how much) can harm ANYTHING… BUT STILL, the 1 harm of boiling water can't even begin to weigh while compared to the MULTIPLE advantages listed in solvency AND the ones solved from inherency harms. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS: --> This argument isn't topical to my plan whatsoever. This evidence deals with nuclear power plants BUT my plan calls for fusion energy which is as safe as can be (which is proven in my solvency advantages)… The evidence only speaks about nuclear power which does not talk about fusion energy specifically… please drop this from the round. --> This paragraph clears up that my opponent does not understand what I am trying to do with my plan. FISSION power has many harms but FUSION power has yet to be linked to anything. My opponent talks about nuclear waste that is proven to not be caused by fusion energy (in my solvency). Then he talks about water pollution caused by fission energy but fission and fusion are completely different types of energy. There are no links and there are therefore NO disadvantages. (www.aecl.com) --> Again the water pollution is not linked to fusion energy. The water pollution he talks about only deals with fission energy which has nothing to do with my energy plan. In the end… even if ALL of these harms are passed (which they do not link so they don't), fusion energy should STILL be invested in. It IS the energy of the future with little to no negative effects. Boiling water does not kill millions of people. The harm is not significant but the advantages are. The costs of fossil fuels ARE expensive and ARE running low AND are causing significant pollution to our earth. Therefore, the plan should be passed immediately. Thank you!

Part of the issue? Global warming patterns are more directly correlated to the sun patterns than with CO2 emissions. "So what Beginner seems to be saying is he drives a gas guzzling vehicle and could give a damn if he kills innocent life forms." My opponent seems to think that gas is ONLY used in vehicles. The oil extracted is a very precious and much needed commodity. Oil runs everything. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the car you drive, the housewares...all the items in this link: http://www.anwr.org... and much more. Almost everything requires oil. The world is now in a state that it cannot run without oil. By giving up oil, you are agreeing that we should give up the production of nearly everything in the world. We should stop producing housing, ventilation, commodities (such as clothing, toothbrush), etc. You are saying we should give up running water (because the engines running such pumps are, guess what? OIL-facilitated) and nearly all common necessities you probably don't even think about. By denouncing nuclear energy, my opponent has also agreed to alternative forms of energy. Since we do not have anything close to a sufficient amount of supplies (economically and literally) to produce enough 'clean' alternative energy, we would be relying on the burning of fossil fuels (the old method) which is much more accessible/practical to mass produce. The irony is that we use nuclear energy because its proponents want cleaner energy. They are against using oil/burning fossil fuels so they support using nuclear energy. This is because nuclear energy is very clean and does not harm the environment when contained. If my opponent is against oil-energy, than the only other practical option is nuclear and vice versa. Other options such as wind and solar are expensive and hard-to-make products. The production of such clean energy alternatives will not cover our energy consumption rate. We consume millions of barrels per day even with nuclear energy: http://www.accuval.net...

& nbsp ;Greenhouse gases reflect heat radiation back towards the Earths surface. The sun produces short wave radiation[1]. It's not affected by the molecules of GG so it continues uninterrupted to our surface. When it hits the surface, some of the energy is absorbed and the rest is reflected back as infrared radiation. This frequency causes the molecules of some gasses & ; nbsp ; to vibrate which in turn redirects heat in all directions including towards other vibrating molecules. Therefore more heat is retained in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses. "Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground."I think you know what I mean by "natural " ;. Does a natural burning produce as much carbon as we do? If burning fossil fuels was naturally that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should burn them. Forest fire happen naturally yet it & ; rsquo ;s not good if we constantly start them.& ldquo ;Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced.& rdquo ;I didn & ; rsquo ;t just repeat you, I said that today our global climate is more than the medieval warm period & ; rsquo ;s was. Some parts are warmer, but the global temperature is warmer. Miocene levels were due to the shape of the ocean basins at that time. Allowing warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide[2]1.& rdquo ;. Pro " ;s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research?& rdquo ;There are some benefits, but do you have any paper proving this one wrong?& ldquo ;is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene " ;Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants & ; rdquo ;Yes, this is evidence from the past of major damage. As the link was suppose to show.& nbsp ;Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects. Plant defenses go down as CO2 levels go up [3]& nbsp ;2.& nbsp ; It & ; rsquo ;s a simple to say just increase water, nitrogen, fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. As I said as CO2 increases run up against limited availability of other nutrients. We synthesize nitrogen using non-renewable fossil fuels, which increase CO2 causing us to synthesize more and more nitrogen for the plants. That & ; rsquo ;s not efficient at all. You mentioned the Haber process. Yes it's possible to convert renewable biomass so we can synthesize nitrogen. However the amount of land and even more resources (often including fertilizer) required to do this gets prohibitive.Even if CO2 increases plant growth, this doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean we should want or need more of it. We need to examine the other effects of increased CO2 . Just like if a doctor tells you to take 1 pill, that doesn & ; rsquo ;t mean 4 pills will be better for you.& ldquo ;Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat " ; to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this.& rdquo ; & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt [4] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps [5] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [6] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen [7] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem[8] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier & ; nbsp ; [9] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [10][11] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle [12] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Increased moralities of sea urchins [13] & nbsp ;& nbsp ; & nbsp ;Threat to fish populations [14] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply [15][16] & nbsp ;& nbsp ;& nbsp ; Contribution to rising sea levels [17][18][19] & nbsp ;& ldquo ;Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides.& rdquo ;What do you mean?& ldquo ;Pro " ;s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed.& rdquo ;I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warmingThe resolution is affirmed Sources1 http :// www . nc-climate . ncsu . edu / edu / k12 /. LWSW 2 Jonathan P. LaRiviere , A. Christina Ravelo , Allison Crimmins , Petra S. Dekens , Heather L. Ford, Mitch Lyle, Michael W. Wara . Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing. Nature, 2012; 486 (7401): 97 DOI : 10.1038/ nature11200 3 http :// www . sciencedaily .com/releases/2008/03/080324173612. htm 4 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /reprint/313/5789/940. pdf 5 http :// oem . bmj .com/content/64/12/827.short6 http :// www . decvar .org/documents/ epstein . pdf 7 http :// www . ncbi . nlm . nih .gov/ pmc /articles/ PMC1480488 /8 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . pnas .org/content/104/30/12395.abstract9 & ; nbsp ; http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/114666310 http :// www . ipsl . jussieu .fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/ Orr_OnlineNature04095 . pdf 11 http :// icesjms . oxfordjournals .org/ cgi /content/full/65/3/41412 http :// webarchive . nationalarchives .gov. uk /+/ http :// www .hm-treasury.gov. uk /media/ FC3 /81/ ExeterpaperProofsTurelyetal . pdf 13 http :// www . eur-oceans . eu / WP9 / Factsheets / FS7 /papers/ Miles%20et%20al% 202007. pdf 14 http :// www . pnas .org/content/107/29/1293015 http :// meteora . ucsd . edu /cap/ pdffiles / barnett_warmsnow . pdf 16 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/short/328/5984/138217 http :// www . sciencemag .org/ cgi /content/abstract/sci;321/5894/134018 http :// www . pnas .org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full. pdf + html 19 http :// www . skepticalscience .com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate. htm

Alright, so you believe that an electric infrastructure would satisfy that needs of the people. Unfortunately, back in 2002, those electric cars cost more than twice the price of a normal car. One example being the Toyota rav4 EV, which was priced at $42,000. For that money I could buy a Chevy Aveo and a Toyota Prius, drive them for 5 years, and still save money. Further, anytime those cars had difficulty, I knew I could find a dealer who knew how to fix it, as opposed to the electric technology, which was dangerous to repair, and even more dangerous in an accident. Consider today's hybrids; you are driving an electrical grid whenever you sit in these vehicles. The fire department holds special training for their fighters to save an individual trapped in one of these cars in a collision. Guess how they get in..... They have to cut into the car from the trunk in order to reach you at the driver seat. This takes a lot of time, something not many people have in the middle of a vicious collision. Let's say the price was lower on these electric cars, and we'll even speculate so far to say that danger is not an issue either. You still have to deal with battery decay. Our modern technology still cannot make so much as a cell phone battery last in top condition for more than a year. Every specification on these electric cars you mentioned means nothing after 6 months, because someone charging the battery nightly, or every two nights, is slowly wearing down the capacity of the battery. It is enough of a pain to charge my cell phone every night when it's estimated working time WAS two days a year ago, and it's even worse when the battery stops working midday because it's capacity is so badly damaged. What happens when your car battery stalls out in the middle of the highway from a poor battery meter and capacity? That's an entire day ruined as you spend perhaps the next couple of days trying to get an expensive replacement. Perhaps car engines require more maintenance due to the particulate emissions, but they an be done quicker and cheaper than any repair on an electric vehicle because of the availability of resources, and the education of the technicians. As far as global warming goes, it is far from "Basic" science. The carbon sample test was performed multiple times and aligned with an estimated time line of temperature change. Indeed, a correlation was found, and global warming proponents like Al Gore use the FIRST test's conclusion, which was discredited, as a reason for their assertion. The time line was adjusted, and a correlation showed the the temperature of the planet rose (or decline) and was FOLLOWED by an increase or decrease in carbon dioxide with a lag period of 700 years. If any conclusion were to be drawn from it, it would state that carbon dioxide was increased by the changing temperature, and NOT the other way around. Check the current IPCC report, and notice how the graph Gore used to make his argument is NOT included. Other models, such as the "hockey stick" model (also used by Gore) are also not included in the report because they-too- were discredited. There is nothing basic about climatology. It is an infant science, and requires far more research into the workings of the world for us to make any clear conclusions. In the end, global warming is not yet confirmed, and the organizations that claim they are often talk about consequences rather than PROOF of their assertions.

It may be more expensive then burning coal, but solar energy does not release greenhouse gasses harmful to the atmosphere, but over time, solar energy pays for itself. While you have to keep paying for more coal, solar energy just makes energy itself and you dont have to keep paying for it. (Save maintenance, checkups, etc.)


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

The United States should transition towards utilizing alternative fuels and move away from its dependence on fossil fuels. I will address my opponent's arguments in a similar format, using numbered points for clarity:

1) My opponent claims that fossil fuels are finite, a fact that I do not dispute. However, I disagree with the assumption that we have an accurate understanding of the world's current oil reserves. For instance, the recent discovery of a massive oil field in the Gulf of Mexico by BP, containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas, highlights the uncertainty in our estimations. Moreover, numerous oil fields have been discovered this year alone, suggesting that our current estimates of oil supplies need to be revised. Thus, the argument that oil will run out soon is misleading and irrelevant to this debate.

2) My opponent asserts that the U.S. has sufficient oil reserves to meet its own demands. However, this overlooks the fact that the figure provided is from 2007 and does not account for recent discoveries or unproven oil reserves like shale deposits and deep ocean wells. The U.S. may have the oil necessary to meet its demand, but choosing not to use it does not negate the issue of dependence on other nations for energy sources.

3) While my opponent claims that alternative energy sources like solar panels and hydroelectric dams have environmental impacts, it is crucial to consider the long-term benefits and sustainability of these methods compared to fossil fuels. Solar panels, for example, require the mining of silicon and phosphorus, but the environmental damage caused by these activities is still less severe than the harm caused by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and coal production. Furthermore, recent advancements in fossil fuel technology have reduced CO2 emissions from modern coal plants by 40%, but this does not change the fact that fossil fuels remain a significant source of pollution.

4) My opponent mentions oil spills as a problem with the shipping of oil, but this is a valid concern that cannot be dismissed. Oil spills can have devastating effects on marine ecosystems, killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish, and other organisms. While alternative energy sources may also pose environmental risks during transportation, the overall impact of oil spills on marine life cannot be ignored.

5) The claim that fossil fuels contain radioactive materials like uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere, is a valid point. However, the radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not been shown to have any adverse effects on human physiology. This fact does not negate the

Thanks to Pro for offering the challenge and presenting the arguments for electric cars as a solution to global warming.Pro claims he answered my question as to what he would do, by mandate or subsidy, to make electric cars a priority. I don't see any sign of that. He also claims to have said how much it would cost. I don't see any sign of that either. Pro provided no analysis of costs and benefits.I calculated the cost of replacing the fleet of cars with electrics and of converting fossil fuel power plants to wind and solar. CO2 is only saved if the power plants are converted, otherwise the CO2 generation is just moved from the cars to the power plant. Optimistically $25 trillion would save about 0.01 degree in global warming. Pro did not contest my calculations or provide an alternative claim. The estimate is optimistic, because electric cars have a short range and many people will be unwilling to accept that severe limitation.I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. They may be useful in lowering the concentration of pollution in central cities, although right now the economics are not favorable even for that. However, as a means of stemming global warming the high cost and low benefit rules them out as being an sort of a priority. Electric cars might also provide a reduction in foreign oil dependence, again if the economics of the vehicles can be improved.What should be a priority is research on climate engineering. Pro did not rebut my claim that climate engineering offers a much greater payoff at much lower cost. Climate engineering might yield a degree or more of cooling for under $1 trillion.Pro did not meet the burden of proof. The resolution is negated.

= MEDICINE = You claim that human-level medical AI is "centuries" in the future. This is absolutely flat wrong; it is 35 years in the past. An AI called MYCIN (http://en.wikipedia.org...) in the 1970s outperformed expert human diagnosticians. Today's AI are well over a billion times more powerful; think what they could do! Medical diagnosis requires calculating the outcome of a huge amount of interdependent data: symptoms, family history, lifestyle, proteomic and genomic data, test results, results of scans etc. AI already does this sort of analysis much better than humans. Medical AI has been proved in practise, so I needn't argue it too much. Beyond diagnosis, things like dispensing drugs are easily done by automated systems and digital reminders. Autonomous surgical robots are also under development. Adciv.org/Medicine presents in more detail what is becoming possible in medicine. = ENERGY = Your vision of the Chinese and Indian governments rolling out alternative energy in grand top-down projects completely misses the point; advancing fabrication technologies, along with open-source know-how, are giving people the ability to take care of their own needs of technology (including power-generation). We no longer have to rely on the bureaucratic arrangements of government projects or free-market enterprises to create abundance. Nor do people have to rely on the monetary system, which circumvents the "not enough money" snafu that you keep bringing up. Your arguments about nuclear power have some validity, but nuclear power is not essential to what I am proposing - I brought it up merely as one of many available energy sources. (Besides, most of what I said was about fusion, which doesn't have the same waste problems as fission.) = MAINTENANCE = You claim "I doubt we would trust automatic systems to watch over a potentially radiation catastrophe". I find it hard to see your logic here; don't we already rely on automatic systems to monitor surges in our power-plants, to diagnose problems in our aeroplanes, to calculate radiation doses for our chemotherapy, to drive certain train networks, and to do any one of hundreds of tasks with human lives at stake? People rightly trust AI more than human monitoring for such vital tasks, because we know how error-prone humans are. Again, your speculations have ignored the facts of the world. = WATER = Creating nanotubes is easy; you heat carbon with a laser in a helium chamber. The technology is far from being "incredibly complex", as you claim, and is frequently done on small scales in university labs and the like. The raw materials are graphite, helium and a cobalt-nickel catalyst - all cheap, abundant and ubiquitous. That is why carbon nanotubes are so cheap now, about two or three dollars per gram. The Tata Swach is a nanofiltration device for water that costs just $21. Doesn't that prove that nanofiltration is cheap and feasible? = ABUNDANCE OF FOOD RESOURCES = Your claim that growing more food means a land-grab is totally wrong. Increasing food-production means using better strains of plants, better pest management and all-round smarter farming to increase the amount of food grown per unit of land. The UN predicts that 90% of our food-production increase will come from increased yield, with only 10% coming from expanding farmland (http://www.fao.org...). We currently have 31.8 trillion square meters of farmland. If we grow high-yield crops in dense intercropped systems and intelligently apply scientific knowledge, we can grow food for a person on 400 square meters. (This is taking a pessimistic estimate. For a list of sources on the farmland needed per person, see adciv.org/Talk:Food. There will obviously be regional variations; in some places just 20 square meters have fed people.) 31.8 trillion divided by 400 is 79.5 billion. That is the number of people that could be fed without expanding farms one inch. If we expanded into the deserts and remediate bad soil, we could increase food-production by another 25%. If we learn to grow meat in-vitro, we could feed billions more. Densely-packed aeroponic greenhouses could feed hundreds of billions more than that. Growth-promoting bacteria can increase yields 10-25%. These are just a few examples of what is possible. We have the resources to feed hundreds of billions (maybe a trillion), yet our population is not expected to grow beyond 9-15 billion. Just as with energy, there is a marvellous superabundance of agricultural resources. More importantly, there is an enormous amount of knowledge about how to utilise these resources. This know-how is being spread around the world for free through the open digital culture. "Now, the main problem with arable land is that most of it is underneath civilization and residences." Where on earth did you get this from? Only a few percent of the world's land is under human developments. Please check your facts before making claims like this. = POPULATION = "nothing indicates that the population growth will stop someday." I don't know where you keep getting these claims. There are many such indications and they are widely documented. Population is in decline in many countries in Europe. As countries in Africa, Asia and South America are developing, their birth rate is decreasing. Everything indicates that population will peak around 2050, at 9-15 billion, in line with UN projections (http://www.un.org...). But, as I have shown, the Earth can carry hundreds of billions. = ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES = You twice claimed that the changes needed are too big and would require massive top-down, heavily funded projects. That is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about technology enabling people to create abundance locally, without reliance on governments, big business or the monetary economy. Digital fabrication technologies are improving and will continue to improve. We currently have Fab Labs that can make any electronic or mechanical device, and cost less than $50,000 (http://www.ted.com...). In the next two or three years, we will have self-replicating Fab Labs for under $20,000. (This is called RepLab; it is a project I am helping manage.) Fabrication is getting to the point of the molecular assembler (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which can make anything from anything by rearranging the atoms. Extrapolating miniturization (http://www.singularity.com...) predicts we will have molecular assemblers around 2025, while the nanotech industry roadmap says 2022-2037 (http://www.productivenanosystems.com...). Understanding the societal impact of these fabrication technologies is key to understanding the AdCiv thesis, so I'm gonna stress it a bit more. When such fabrication technologies become widespread, technology becomes decoupled from monetary needs, government intervention and market forces. Do you see that? Without digital fabrication, people must rely on government and business to provide their needs. With digital fabrication, this reliance falls away, and with it go the bureaucratic, financial and economic obstacles to abundance. People will no longer need money to provide their needs; they will need only raw materials plus information. Raw materials are ubiquitous and cheap; information is freely available through open digital culture. In exactly the same way that music has become free and abundant by cutting out the monetary aspect, so it will be for all the things needed for a wealthy life. I see no roadblocks to this happening. I started this debate in the hope that someone would point out a roadblock that I had overlooked, but you have not done so.

Due to the fact that you are an obvious and true moron who has a natural bona fide cabbage batbrain who cannot read worth a damn, this debate is now over. Get an edumacation, graduate from that big big big high school of yours, and get an intelligence please. Many thanx.

I hope Pro and any readers are enjoying the debate. I think the discussion is worthwhile.What does"giving a priority" mean?I asked Pro what he meant by "giving a priority" to electric cars, how much it would cost, and what result would be achieved. So far, he has said nothing about what "giving a priority" means. Does it mean subsidies or mandates? He doesn't say. I also want to know what he claims will be accomplished in terms of lowering the warming of the earth. He hasn't said anything about that either. Electric cars only move the CO2 to power plantsElectric cars are very expensive. Pro's sources admit that. All that electric cars do is transfer the CO2 produced by automobiles to CO2 produced by power plants. For power plants to produce less CO2, they must be converted to something other than fossil fuels, and that's an extremely expensive proposition. Even if we did that, it would have almost no effect on global warming, because the US currently produces only 18% of the CO2, and that percentage is dropping rapidly as the developing world consumes more energy. To combat global warming, the priority should be put on methods of climate engineering that not only can solve the problem, but at reasonable cost.Pro claims that moving energy production from vehicles to power plants substantially reduces CO2. Pro relies on the Union of Concerned Scientists web site that asserts. "BEVs are recharged with electricity from power plants that use fossil fuels, they are up to 99 percent cleaner than conventional vehicles and can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent."The site gives no references for the assertions. It has no credibility beyond that of an unsupported blog post. The Union of concerned Scientists has few scientists as members. It is composed of political activists http://www.sullivan-county.com... who get scientists to sign petitions outside of their specialties, like physicists willing to go on record with claims about engineering. The first statement is that power plants are "up to 99% cleaner" than automobiles. "Cleaner" means lower in production of sulphates and other pollutants. That's not the subject of our debate. However, 8% of electricity is from hydroelectric plants and 23% from nuclear. Neither produces any emissions, so they are 100% cleaner. The key is the "up to" part. That means that it is possible if you happen to be charging the vehicle from one of those sources. However, most of the power comes from coal and natural gas, and that's not going to change without the many trillions of dollars of expense in building new plants. Incidentally, Kilauea, the volcano in Hawaii, emits more pollution than all the cars of the world combined. The second part of the statement uses the same trick. CO2 emissions may be reduced "up to 70%." If the car is charged from a hydroelectric or nuclear source, the reduction is 100%, so they can make any claim they please "up to" 100%. How warming would be prevented by electric cars?Pro claim by numbers of $25 trillion for 0.026 degree reduction in global warming are false, but he gives no reason why. I thought my claim might prompt him to find some numbers, but not so.The temperature reduction I gave is an upper bound, assuming that somehow the US could reduce its CO2 output by 50% by converting all the cars and power plants. It would reduce U CO2 contribution for 18% to 9% of the world total. The rise in global temperature is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. http://motls.blogspot.com... So if the total CO2 produces a one degree rise in fifty years, a reduction by half the US total would reduce the temperature by 0.026 degree, That comes from the math of logarithms.There are 250 million passenger cars in the US. Going to $40K electric cars would cost $10 trillion. All the cars would ordinarily be replaced eventually, in about 20 years. Advancing that to replace them faster costs an amount proportional to the total. When the capital, backup, distribution costs are counted, wind power costs about five times as much as conventional power and solar power about seven times as much. Hence the green upgrade is the cost to replace 70% of the power plants in the country, times about six. The US needs about 900,000 megawatt. http://www.eia.gov... A new 300 megawatt coal plant is roughly $1 billion. http://www.jsonline.com... A green energy upgrade would be about $12.6 trillion. The total for just the cars and power plants is $22.6 trillion, to which we must add the new infrastructure for charging stations and new plants to accommodate the 250 million electric vehicles. The current grid will not accommodate that many electric vehicles. How much CO2 is from cars? Pro cites, "The production and use of gas and diesel in cars, trucks, and buses also account for 27 percent of U.S. global warming pollution." No one claims that heavy long haul trucks can be converted to electricity, and each long haul truck uses as much fuel as forty cars. http://online.wsj.com... There are 2 million heavy trucks, http://www.truckinfo.net... which therefore consume as much fuel as 80 million cars. That means that converting all the cars to electric can at most reduce 20% of the country's CO2 emissions. Going back to the previous calculation, if reducing US CO2 emissions by half saves 0.026 degree of warming, the 20% reduction can obtain at most 0.01 degree. Actually, it's less, because warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Summary Around $25 trillion spent on electric cars and green power plants in the US will save about 0.01 degree of global warming. That's not worth any priority. Instead, we should put priority on climate engineering, where less than $1 trillion can get a degree or more of cooling.

My opponent had only mentioned Nuclear Fusion once, so I will clarify this further.Nuclear Fusion is Clean1. My opponent argues that "Nuclear power is not clean," however he is incorrect in saying that Nuclear Fusion is not clean. This reaction only releases large amounts of heat, by radiation, in the first paragraph I should have said that the process radiates heat. Also my opponent said that Nuclear Power is unsafe. However, Nuclear Fusion is far safer, and would not have the same affects as a nuclear fission reaction. According to http://en.wikipedia.org..., it only releases energy, not radiation. Also my opponent mentioned Nuclear Power releases waste, however the Nuclear Fusion of process helium 3 and 2 only releases helium 4 and a neutron. Compared to Nuclear Fission, which my opponent really strained, the waste is easy to deal with and it is NOT radioactive.Nuclear Fusion Works2. According to wikipedia, a successful Nuclear Fusion process has been completed. This means there is a large potential use for this technology and it should not be turned down. Look further and Nuclear Fusion has the potential to power the world, for 150 billion years. Why would you ignore a technology that requires one reaction and continues to power a city for a long period of time? Well I wouldn't.Nuclear Fusion is Sustainable3.In order to start a Nuclear Fusion process, you have to simply combine TWO ATOMS, yes that's right, if you combine two atoms you gain a consistent energy flow over a long period of time. Another useful function to Nuclear Fusion could be cars, the cars would have an almost unlimited amount of fuel, and would have enough to power a car for a life time. Considering that Nuclear Fusion is so sustainable, it would be more than worth it to collect helium 3 from the moon.Helium 34. Helium 3 is extremely expensive, returning with only 2 tons of helium 3 would cover the costs and still provide profit. According tohttp://www.explainingthefuture.com... helium three is worth $3bn per tonne. According to wikipedia it costs 10 million dollars per ton of extra weight. Looking at more recent articles than my opponent, it actually costs 3 billion dollars to go to the moon. Not that this supports my argument, however two tons of helium 3 would cover all the costs. Also, on the moon there is an estimated 1,100,000, tons of helium 3 in just a depth of a few meters. Considering that there is a great supply on the moon, and that is replenished by the sun. Helium 3 would be a very valuable resource.Conclusion:Why turn down a sustainable energy that powers a city for a 150 billion years?Vote Prohttp://www.explainingthefuture.com...; http://en.wikipedia.org...

Honestly I think you are just trying to support solar power. The final line in your previous post offends me. There are things we can do to stop global warming. And their IS something to worry about. At the rate we are going we will all be dead in 150 years or so. You claim to continue, living your life. That may work for our generation, but our children and grnadchildren simple may not be able to keepin "living their life" because we neglected to take action. Global Warming IS CAUSED BY MAN, that is a scientific fact that cannot be disputed. It may have been played up, but it IS CAUSED BY MAN. As I mentioned earlier, if 9 of the 400 or so facts in AIT are wrong, that woudl mean that 391 are true. 391 in favor of global warming being caused by humans v. 9 against. Look at the statistics.

You seem to misunderstand how electricity works. It is not a source of power, it transmits power. Fuel and oil cannot transmit power by themselves, and we do not have any other method of energy transmission that is nearly as efficient to build and maintain. Consider the machines of the first industrial revolution, which predated the use of electric transmission.The mining drills and steam engines used purely mechanical movements such as gears, pulleys, etc. These were certainly revolutionary machines at the time, but they required coal to be used directly where the machine was. This meant that transmission of power was just the movement of coal from one place to another in a cart.The idea of using electricity as a transferral of energy method had existed in the early 19th century. But there was no need at the time, as energy use was too low to require a complex method of energy transferral. When the second industrial revolution began in the late 19th century, oil was the new kingpin of energy sources. The efficiency of electricity was the perfect match, and soon newer, more powerful machines began.Although the method of transferring electricity would change in the 1950s with the invention of the transistor, most of the changes to electric power grids have been to increase the efficiency and decrease space taken up by transmission. With that in mind, it is important to recognize that the modern developments in technology have been more about how we use electricity than electricity itself.Similarly, the only significant way that the internet has changed over time is in its capability to transmit information efficiently. Don't let the fancy new GUIs fool you, information transmission speed is the only way the internet has adapted over time. That, and people have come up with new ways to use it.The internet and electricity are similar in their methods of changing over time; they've both become more efficient at their intended purpose, but otherwise the only important developments are in the way we use them.In addition, do not forget that even if the internet did somehow evolve into a hyper-advanced energy technology, it would still be piggybacking off of electric power. While we certainly enjoy Kindles, we can't forget that the printing press was more important.

"Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms." When there are more greenhouse gases, sunlight will be prevented from heating the Earth due to the Greenhouse effect. Thus in the long term, the Earth will experience an ice age due to the ultimate reduction in heat energy. When the fuel has been used up, the heat levels will gradually decrease. This is the cause for cyclic nature of global climate change. "It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change." Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground. A more likely explanation for the warmth of the Cretaceous period is the methane generated by the huge amounts of vegetation rotting in the huge dinosaurs digestive systems. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The dinosaurs were then wiped out by meteor impacts, sparing the other animals the cost of living with those methane factories. Or was it because dinosaurs were considered a threat for producing so much greenhouse gas and so were wiped out? I absolutely do not get the link between CO2 buildup and continental drift. Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced. I have nothing to dispute in Pro"s explanation of CO2 usage. 1. Pro"s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research? The rise in CO2 is hardly sudden and the link to [5] is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene"Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants. I agree that the nutritional quality of SOME plants may decrease. 2. Simple explanation to remove the "threat." Fertilization. Nitrogen is relatively easy to synthesize [1]. Nitrogen is widely used as a fertilizer in the form of ammonium nitrate. There is also the Haber process, which I assume you are familiar with. These negate the "threat" from human activity. More vegetation means that more vegetation would be destroyed means that nitrogen would be recycled at a faster rate. I will not respond to the video. 1-5: I have debunked all of the claims that elevated CO2 levels is harmful to plants. I have shown a way around the nitrogen plateau problem. Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat" to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this. Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides. Pro"s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed. 1. http://www.organic-chemistry.org...

Rebuttals:1) Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.2) Yes, indeed, energy is finite.3) No.There is radiation between the Sun and Earth, which means that there is transfer of energy through space from the Sun to Earth. That solar energy then turns into heat. How does the Sun do that?Well, what happens is, that Sun takes 2 atoms and both go through a process called fusion. Remember that the Sun is not "producing" its own energy, but rather changing one's form.4) #3 is not true. And even if that was true, mass does not. Solid objects are dense, which means that matter is very compact in which they can not move around. However, for gas, it is not. They have space to move around in which they do. Same goes with the Universe.Also, why did you change the subject?Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

i think tidal power is the best power there is becuase it would not harm the envoirment and also it won't hurt the sea life and it prouduces electrity my favorite tidal power is the seagen turbine it powers up to a 1,000 homes and also it can't hurt sea life the 52 feet blades move so slow that sea life can't be harmed and also it moves all the time for more information goto popsci.com.