My argument is brief as CON has already conceded the debate in a way.
In the Fourth National Climate Assessment
, a non-partisan, unbiased, strictly science-based study, headed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and using sources from countless peer-reviewed texts published in highly-regarded scientific journals, they found that "average temperature has increased by about 1.8°F from 1901 to 2016...and by 1.2°F (0.65°C) for the period 1986–2015 as compared to 1901–1960...and observational evidence does not support any credible natural explanations for this amount of warming; instead, the evidence consistently points to human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse or heat-trapping gases, as the dominant cause.
" This is a key observation as many people who deny that climate change is as critical an issue as some people frame it to be base their arguments upon the fact that we have no idea what will happen in the future, and therefore we cannot start taking precautionary measures.
We can also observe that these changes a
re taking place due to human activity. If we look at FIG 2.1 in CH 2 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment which can be found here
, we can toggle the graph to include only Natural Drivers of climate change. Volcanic activity is the prominent one and in most cases, it, in fact, decreases global temperature, as you can see the large downward peaks that form in a stalactitic fashion when a major volcanic event takes place, as I believe that the downward peaks coincide with the eruptions of Krakatoa, Kilauea, and Pinatubo, respectively, which released major clouds of ash into the air that caused less solar rays to enter the atmosphere. If we toggle the graph instead to feature just greenhouse gases, we can see that there has been a more than a major rise in activity.
We can consult FIG 2.2 in CH 2 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which can be found here
. If this trend of increasing carbon emissions continues, we could be facing a temperature change of anywhere from 0.4° to 8.5°F, with a range of either 0.4° to 2.7°F if carbon emissions have already peaked, which is highly unlikely, 1.7° to 4.4°F if carbon emissions will peak around 2050, which, although possible, is still unlikely, and 4.2° to 8.5°F if carbon emissions keep increasing. If we consult FIG 2.3 in CH 2 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which can be found here
, we can see that this change could have catastrophic effects on sea levels, where the best-case scenario would cause sea levels to rise anywhere from about 0.3 to 0.9m, and worst-case scenario would cause sea levels to rise anywhere from about 0.5 to 2.3m.
There are many other side effects that would occur if carbon emissions kept increasing, and as you can see, I only scratched the surface of the report, taking information from just one chapter out of a total of 29, which cover almost everything from national topics to information about specific regions to possible responses. With this, I conclude my argument.
That's what you get for playing games. You want a 5-round debate, debate 5 rounds and stop this waiving nonsense. You've got an argument; make it!. You initiate, you begin your argument first. Is that so hard? Waive; wave bye-bye to the debate.
I realized he’s probably going to k me
oh noo ima lose now
Here is a re-active RM, which accepts everything he could think of.
Please, no arguments over semantics.
The purpose of waiving is so that CON presents first to satisfy BoP.
The Earth warms everyday, by 10s of degrees in some places. It largely has to do with various forms of solar radiation.
I have to ask, what is the motivation behind waiving the first and last rounds?