Instigator
Points: 28

Modern climate change is driven by human activity.

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
1,470
Contender
Points: 12
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
Proof of humanity's effect on climate:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
CO2 is released by our industry and automobiles.
Therefore we release a greenhouse gas.



Carbon comes in 3 isotopes (or atoms with different numbers of neutrons, and therefore weights.
c-12 makes up 98.9% of our modern carbon. c-13 makes up most of the rest, and c-14 doesn't matter (1 in a trillion or so) 
our atmosphere had more c-13 in the past, and the carbon stored in old fossil fuels proves that.
The increase in c-13 in our atmosphere shows exactly how much carbon we are really responsible for. and it correlates exactly with the expected affect on climate.



to preempt a common false counter argument.
YES THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES NATURALLY... over the course of tens to hundreds of thousands of years... not a single century, not this much.
climate is a complex phenomena affected by many variables, most of which are rather stable. this does not mean we cannot become one of those variables, or even a dominant variable, as our industries grow.

Published:
This argument is invalid because as the co2 in the atmosphere rises plants grow better which sokes in more Co2 basic canceling itself. The earth has alway gone back to a moderate som we will have no long term effects. Even supervolcano eruptions have been recovered from. This is weather change not climate change. 
Round 2
Published:
My opponent does not dispute the existence of climate change, nor its human cause. My points remain unchallenged.

Instead my opponent claims that evolution works like magic allowing all life to instantly adapt with no consequences. All life depends on a carefully balanced internal environment. Plants use CO2 in the production of sugar much like we use 02. Giving a person more 02 will not make him grow faster, reproduce more, or gain more energy, it will kill him (or her). 

Life will undoubtedly adapt and continue, but that is in a general sense. Most abrupt changes, including the supervolcanoes, lead to some of our most massive mass extinctions. 

Published:
I have disputed your point. plants grow best in a all co2 atmosphere. This means that the coo2 levels will return to normal
Round 3
Published:
My points were that climate change is real and man made.
By saying plants will solve this, you are agreeing its real, and not disputing that its man made... thus my points remain unchallenged. 

As to your magic plants argument: you ignored my counter argument that life requires a balance and that evolution doesnt work that fast. These counter arguments were not addressed.

Furthermore, global warming is not new, why havent the plants been working so far? Carbon continues to increase. Even if your theory happened to be correct, it clearly isnt keeping pace with our emissions and isnt enough of a solution.

Do you dispute that humans are driving modern climate change? If yes, please explain and address my proofs from the first round. If no, thank you for conceeding.

Forfeited
Added:
Im curious why i am not getting the better sources credit as im the only one who provided any citation, provided repeated citation, and provided (imo) good citations.
Instigator
#30
Added:
--> @crossed
yes, republicans who supported bigger government, free land giveaways, and heavy industrial interference. with a constituency of urban northerners....
no, the whole past republicans/democrats part was brought up by someone else, I'm simply showing how absurd it is.
Instigator
#29
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
During the Civil war the Republican abe Lincoln ended slavery and the democrats were pro slavery and helped the south.
"Abraham Lincoln elected president. Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency. Lincoln received only 40 percent of the popular vote but handily defeated the three other candidates: Southern Democrat John C."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/abraham-lincoln-elected-president
You keep comparing modern republicans to past republicans
#28
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Just like the republicans did after the civil war, by raising taxes, investing public money into new industries, and giving out free stuff... renewable energy is the obvious cost effective choice in the very near future, especially if it receives proper funding that prioritizes results, not return on investment.
This focus on profit over results is the weakness of a pure free market. They often do correlate, but with things like new industries, they falter. Railroads, factories, nuclear, space, and now renewables all required massive initial investment that no sane private funder would ever sacrifice. especially early in development. The first public company is just starting to launch satellites, and that's thanks to a visionary willing to burn ALOT of money. Imagine our world if we were just now starting to launch satellites!
Yes the government has failures, it also has successes.
Yes the private industry has successes, it also has failures.
Relying soley on either one is folly. They both have different limitations, strengths, and most importantly, priorities.
Instigator
#27
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I personally wouldn't mind a mix or renewables and nuclear. My concern would be the new price of energy. The poor still need to be considered, and renewable energy is currently rather expensive.
#26
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Yes, batteries. Thank you.
Still, it is in battery construction, not routine operation. My point remains unchanged. Once you make it, it passively creates energy with minimal input.
You may have a point about the extra boost, but wouldn't it make sense to have an underlying powergrid of renewables with a few nuclear plants we can turn on when we need a boost. This will result in minimal waste and plenty of energy.
Instigator
#25
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I thought I mentioned rare earth metals for the creation of batteries to store the energy. That is needed because otherwise you could only get energy when the sun is shining for panels or when the wind is blowing if you are using turbines. Other forms of energy are made to meet demand because they don't depend on forces of nature.
#24
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
I know you mentioned the rare earth metals in solar panels, and your gonna call me out on saying renewables dont need extraction of materials...
Thats for construction of solar panels. Youll have to compare that to the building of an entire coal plant. Im talking about finding the materials for the actual energy reaction. You dont need coal to build the factory, you need it to pump it in every minute until the factory shuts down. You need it for the actual production of energy. A constant material need.
You build a solar panel, and you forget about it. (routine maintenance again goes for both). No need to pump anything. The only time youll need material is if you want to expand. But you can also spend time looking for alternatives or improvements as you dont really need to do any mining or pumping. Amazing!
Instigator
#23
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
you win i studied the subject and you are right i vote for you if i could
#22
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
That sounds like you just read the lines.
It didnt mention that we have to handle this waste for millions of years before it is decontaminated. Meaning our great great great great x1000 grandchildren will still be handling our very first waste while looking for more sites to store more waste. This is a very bad long term solution. Only a selfish short sighted people would go for this.
It created little waste because it isnt a majority source. If it becomes the primary source it will be much more waste. + our energy needs grow exponentially... thats alot more waste. And good luck finding people happy to live near a nuclear waste storage facility. Lol
Its a good bandaid for limited use, but we need real solutions. There will never be a time without sun, wind, waves, or magma. Once its set up its just passive energy flowing through our society, and instead of extracting more raw materials, we can focus on improving efficiency and scale.
Instigator
#21
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
I just read between the lines. If it is true that this small amount of waste was created, then that is something I can work with.
#20
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
Its not just about saying the truth, its also about saying the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and cutting out misleading sugar coating.
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
My google search I think was "disposing of nuclear waste". I did realize that their wording was very skewed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their facts are wrong.
#18
Added:
--> @bmdrocks21
do you realize you are quoting an industry lobby group?
aren't you concerned not only about their bias, but also their conflict of interest?
were you not curious about the cuddly language use in describing the radioactive cells?
what was the wording of your google search?
Instigator
#17
Added:
--> @Nemiroff
https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste
#16
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Pro provided evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Con failed to refute any of Pro's points. Furthermore, Con's argument that plants will return average global temperatures to normal is completely irrelevant to his claim (that climate change is not caused by human activity).
Conduct: Con forfeited final round
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Even if I accepted everything that con said as true on its face - it does not negate the resolution, and nothing con said related directly to the contention pro made - saying co2 will return to normal does not negate that modern climate change is being driven by humans. As pro made a basic argument to tie co2 to human involvement, and co2 to climate- he meets his basic burden of proof and arguments must go to pro.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
What's to say, pro showed the unquestioned correlation. Con responded by arguing we're changing the weather not the climate, and closes by insisting it will naturally return to normal. If it isn't a big deal, doesn't dispute the human connection.
Conduct for forfeiture.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeiture.
Arguments-----
Nem is really the only one to make a proficient argument, he states how climate change is as a result of humans because of how fast the planet is warming, and then demonstrates how this is because of humans use of fossil fuels(which releases more C13, this is a pretty sound argument. He establishes a reasonable cause for the planets rapid warming.
Sadly Con doesn't state anything relevant to the resolution, he tries to prove climate change isn't a problem, not that humans don't impact our climates change.
Nem is the only person to offer a single piece of evidence relevant to the resolution. Therefore, Pro wins arguments by a wide margin.