Instigator / Pro
8
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4066
On balance, the concerns with Global Warming are exaggerated
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
K_Michael
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1581
rating
38
debates
64.47%
won
Description
Rules:
1. One forfeit is a concession.
2. BOP is shared.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
I will be defending three major constructive arguments which shall be the basis for nearly every point I make.
BOP:
On-balance, so BOP is shared. I win if I prove that climate scientists and environmentalists are being dramatic when it comes to Global Warming and my opponent wins if he proves that the concerns are valid.
Contentions:
l. The Cause of Carbon in the atmosphere is unknown.
Humans are given a lot of credit for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but there is no way to know this for certain. Simply observing the atmosphere will not give you enough information to make a conclusion.
ll. Vegetation releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
There is more carbon in vegetation currently than there is in the atmosphere, and it is nearly impossible to judge that artificial technology is responsible for this phenomenon when vegetation is largely to blame for this too.
lll. Current models are underdeveloped.
The DOE invested too much money into computer modeling and didn't prioritize research enough. This is why current models cannot accurately capture what is actually going on. So, the warnings about Global Warming are all fearmongering based on predictions with nothing to support it.
Con
#2
Thank you for the opportunity, Sir.Lancelot.
Rebuttals
l. The Cause of Carbon in the atmosphere is unknown.
Irrelevant. The debate topic, in your own words, is whether "concerns with global warming are exaggerated." The cause of global warming is not addressed or necessary for this claim to be proven one way or another. Given that A. global warming exists (I will address this later) and B. "scientists and environmentalists" are concerned about it, then all that is left to be determined is if their concerns are in line with how serious the effects of global warming actually are.
ll. Vegetation releases CO2 into the atmosphere.
This claim, on its face, is true. Like all aerobic organisms, the process of cellular respiration within plants consumes sugars and oxygen and releases carbon dioxide and water vapor. However, plants and other photosynthetic organisms, primarily cyanobacteria, also use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis to produce sugars, a process which also releases oxygen as a waste product into the atmosphere. On average, plants consume about 10 times as much CO2 in photosynthesis than they produce in cellular respiration.[1]
There is more carbon in vegetation currently than there is in the atmosphere
Yes, this is true. There are three major carbon sinks on Earth. Biomass, rock/soil, and the oceans. What Pro misunderstands is that these carbon sinks are storing and removing carbon from the atmosphere, not releasing it. The more carbon there is in plants, the less there is in the atmosphere.
it is nearly impossible to judge that artificial technology is responsible for this phenomenon when vegetation is largely to blame for this too.
Strictly based on biomass alone, the sheer number of plants means that they produce more carbon dioxide on a daily basis than all of human activities, but as I said before, the net amount of carbon dioxide produced is negative, as plants take 10x more out of the environment than they put out. Plants have been around for hundreds of millions of years, but atmospheric and core ice samples have definitively proven an massive upwards trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration only in the last 300 years, coinciding almost directly with the industrial revolution and the mass burning of fossil fuels, as well as the beginning of a explosive human population growth. [2] While it is not the only source of carbon emissions, human activity fits the bill as the one causing the sudden spike.
lll. Current models are underdeveloped.The DOE invested too much money into computer modeling and didn't prioritize research enough. This is why current models cannot accurately capture what is actually going on. So, the warnings about Global Warming are all fearmongering based on predictions with nothing to support it.
A lack of information doesn't mean that there is nothing to worry about. Uncertainty means that we should devote more resources to understanding what is going on, not less. This is the equivalent of saying, "there is some evidence that there are sharks in the water, but not definitive evidence, so we should go swimming."
Arguments (reasons to be concerned)
As already established, rise in CO2 levels (not to mention methane from mass-scale farming, other fossil fuel pollutants, and deforestation) is amplifying the 'greenhouse effect,' essentially a giant blanket of gas and particulates that absorb escaping heat/light (photons), is causing average global temperatures to rise. This may not seem particularly dangerous at first, after all, temperatures around the world fluctuate on a yearly and daily basis, why should such a small change be that bad? Here are a few effects that global warming will have at its current pace.
Ice cap melting and sea level rise
Obviously, temperature increases translate into more melting, but the effects are more severe than that.
1. Ice is reflective. The majority of light that hits the polar icecaps is reflected back away from earth. With decreasing amounts of ice, the amount of light instead absorbed by less reflective surfaces such as rock and water will increase with it.
2. Ice stores carbon. As I said before there are three major carbon sinks on Earth: biomass, rock/soil, and the ocean. This last can arguably be broken into two, as ice stores carbon more stably than water. Since it's solid, gas exchange between ice and air is extremely limited. As more ice melts, even more carbon is released into the atmosphere.
Both 1 and 2 have a secondary effect, a positive feedback loop. As more ice melts, more light is absorbed and more greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere, which increases temperature, which melts more ice... you get the idea.
3. Sea levels. While the Arctic icecap is floating, and therefore will displace just as much water in liquid form as solid, the Antarctic icecap and Greenland ice sheet are currently massive glaciers sitting on top of their respective landmasses. When both have totally melted, it translates to a 220 foot rise in sea level. Even a single meter of sea level rise would displace about 410 million people, not to mention destroy industry, plant life, and ecosystems in those areas. [3]
I'm feeling a little burnt out today, but I will be posting additional arguments in the next round if I feel it necessary.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Climate change has happened many times in the past. It's completely normal.
A lack of information doesn't mean that there is nothing to worry about. Uncertainty means that we should devote more resources to understanding what is going on, not less. This is the equivalent of saying, "there is some evidence that there are sharks in the water, but not definitive evidence, so we should go swimming."
What would be the point of devoting most of our budget and resources to fixing a problem that is unfixable, if true, and would deplete our costs and quality of living? The fears of this ludicrous future catastrophe are doing more damage to mankind than Global Warming. By driving people insane and attempting to get rid of coalmining and power plantations, we are driving the risk of running people out of work for something we don't even understand that well.
Con
#4
Rebuttals
Climate change has happened many times in the past. It's completely normal.
Not all climate change is equal. If you had reviewed my source [2] in round 1, you would see that CO2 levels over the last 800 thousand years have fluctuated between approximately 180 and 300 ppm, with each peak and valley in the tens of thousands of years apart. About 20,000 years ago, the last major ice age ended. Between then and 1750, CO2 had naturally risen to about 278 ppm. Then, in the last 300 years, it skyrocketed past all recorded trends, reaching 365 ppm in 2002 and 420 ppm in just 20 years after that. The rise to 278 ppm in 1750 was likely normal and may have even continued to rise over the next few thousand years, but the rapid and unfettered rise after that is clearly not "normal."
What would be the point of devoting most of our budget and resources to fixing a problem that is unfixable, if true, and would deplete our costs and quality of living?
No one said anything about devoting "most" of our budget. The U.S. spent $1.45 trillion in 2022. [1] The same year, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was given $11.4 billion. This is only 0.78% of the federal budget.[2] There is an argument that climate change is not unfixable, largely by creating an artificial cooling event, but this is a fairly complex issue that is still being debated by experts, so I will leave it out of this debate. Even so, understanding exactly what climate change will do and at what timescale will allow us to better prepare for the changes it will wreak on our way of life.
The fears of this ludicrous future catastrophe are doing more damage to mankind than Global Warming.
You have provided no evidence of this.
By driving people insane and attempting to get rid of coalmining and power plantations, we are driving the risk of running people out of work for something we don't even understand that well.
Insanity huh? I'd love to see a study showing that climate change believers have a higher incidence of mental illness than climate change deniers.
On coal and other fossil fuels, climate change is not the only reason that we should be trying to move away from reliance on these options. Human consumption of fossil fuels is rapidly depleting the amount left in the earth for us to extract. Most estimates put oil as being effectively gone in 30-50 years, and coal at 70.[3] It is incredibly important that we replace or at least supplement our current energy infrastructure with more sustainable options before this happens, or we will see a massive recession as transportation and agricultural infrastructure starves to death.
Arguments
Ice cap melting and sea level rise
Completely ignored. Extend.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Many of these countries and islands have come into existence through catastrophism.
Some of the changes in the environment are necessary for the continuity and preservation of life. So hurricanes and tsunamis are just natural phenomenons.
The melting of the ice glaciers will cause a severe cooling event, as the heat causes the water to evaporate and there are a series of rainstorms.
Con
#6
I must say that I'm rather disappointed in the lack of effort you're putting into this.
Rebuttals
Many of these countries and islands have come into existence through catastrophism.
Pro fails to explain what he means by catastrophism. I can only assume that he's referring to the various tectonic activities responsible for the formation of new land. Pro also fails to elaborate on what this has to do with the futures of inhabitants of these vulnerable coastlines. Is a person on a volcanic island less entitled to care about what happens to their homeland and property simply because it was produced by a different geological process?
Some of the changes in the environment are necessary for the continuity and preservation of life.
The argument that change is necessary for life to continue is flimsy at best. Many types of organism have flourished for hundreds of millions of years with very little morphological differences, such as sharks and cockroaches. And even if some change is beneficial, rapid change on a global scale is decidedly not. Mass extinction events, such as the K-T extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, resulted in approximately 76% of all plant and animal species alive at the time to go extinct. All of this was caused by a single asteroid causing what is known as an impact winter, which onset too rapidly for the majority of organisms to adapt to.
As I have already provided evidence of, current climate change is showing temperatures rising hundreds of times faster than historical trends, as well as exceeding the bounds of previous peaks.
So hurricanes and tsunamis are just natural phenomenons.
Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes in the seabed, and have nothing to do with the climate.
The melting of the ice glaciers will cause a severe cooling event, as the heat causes the water to evaporate and there are a series of rainstorms.
Pro provides no evidence of this. Furthermore, water vapor serves as a greenhouse gas, just as CO2, methane, and countless other atmospheric compounds, so if anything, this strengthens my point.[1]
Round 4
Pro
#7
So, if CO2 progressively increases every year, why has the temperature of the atmosphere not tripled?
The argument that change is necessary for life to continue is flimsy at best. Many types of organism have flourished for hundreds of millions of years with very little morphological differences, such as sharks and cockroaches. And even if some change is beneficial, rapid change on a global scale is decidedly not. Mass extinction events, such as the K-T extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs, resulted in approximately 76% of all plant and animal species alive at the time to go extinct. All of this was caused by a single asteroid causing what is known as an impact winter, which onset too rapidly for the majority of organisms to adapt to.As I have already provided evidence of, current climate change is showing temperatures rising hundreds of times faster than historical trends, as well as exceeding the bounds of previous peaks.
"Negative effects of more CO2 have been exaggerated. Readily available data from governmental and reliable non-governmental sources confirm that extreme weather events in recent years have not occurred more frequently or with greater intensity. Such data also refute claims of ecologically damaging ocean acidification, accelerating sea level rises, and disappearing global sea ice and other alleged dangers. If further observations confirm a small climate sensitivity, these realities will not change."
We have proof that the CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for the environment, since it is making the Earth greener.
Con
#8
CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for the environment
The subject of the argument is not whether or not CO2 is good for the environment, bad for the environment, or even if CO2 causes climate change or not (though I have already provided evidence of such). The resolution is whether or not concerns about climate change are valid or exaggerated. This final argument fails to address the resolution.
As there are no new on-topic arguments to rebut, and any new arguments on my part would be cheating, I will rest my case here.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I vote Con, here's why:
1. I buy that the cause of global warming is an irrelevant question.
2. I buy that plants are a carbon sink and absorb more than they produce.
3. I buy that human activity is the major cause of carbon production.
4. I buy that the current path of global warming solutions is inexpensive and we would have to create alternative energy regardless of global warming.
5. I buy that the melting of glaciers is real and creates multiple feedback loops that cause displacement of people through rising sea levels. There is no risk of a cooling event because water vapor makes the issue worse.
6. I buy that the rapid acceleration of the climate from man-made carbon is a unique issue compared to previous global warming.
7. I buy that previous catastrophe is irrelevant as it is tectonic.
8. I buy that rapid environmental change is bad and that sharks and roaches prove you don't need change at all.
9. I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, however, this doesn't impact the question of climate change.
In conclusion, humans are producing carbon that is causing the plant to warm. This melts glaciers and causes all the bad things. Even if I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, this doesn't answer glacier melting or alternative sources of greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, etc.) Argumentation about alternative sources of energy and the issues that come from solutions to climate change are answered by Con sufficiently when they say that it is inevitable and not unique to climate change. Anyways, the conversation is about if climate change is over exaggerated, and I don't know how I weigh those in the question anyways.
Notes for Pro
1. Answer the glacier argument. Gives them the debate.
2. I saw this debate once today as it is, how do you not know that the politics thing is an irrelevant question?
3. Care about the debate. Maybe reading that you seem to not be trying three times will make you take on less debates and engage in more good-faith debates.
Notes for Con
1. Answer the greener argument, you didn't answer this.
2. Con asked the question why the planet isn't 3x hotter because of CO2, but since it was a question and I don't know if he was saying that disproves the science or what, I didn't weigh it. You still should handle this.
3. You won that the cause of global warming is irrelevant, why didn't you do a bunch of work on methane or something? Very easy ballot that way.
If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD:
https://youtu.be/HUuJa4co5gA
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imTJlGfcMDFN2ZkHs29uSrvsNrkXmxUYcepJCCsIQT8/edit?usp=sharing
I will try my best, and thank you!
Thank you! I likely would have. Perhaps not because the main points you lost were related to arguments you didn't address. It would really depend on how you chose to argue.
Out of curiosity, would you have awarded more arguments to me if the BoP had been on Pro? Trying to calibrate how effective my usual strategy is, largely rebuttals.
Thank you for the vote. It was very insightful to see how you evaluate arguments. Not sure how those two links got broken, but I can try to find the sources again if you are curious.
Voted, my RFD is being processed on YouTube
Voting is open.
Remind me to vote on this one. I am debating on voting on it.
Following this to eventually be a judge
Exaggerated? Compared to what? Without a comparison, I cannot be sure that anyone will or will not pull an almighty trigger.
I got donowalled?
Whose concerns? The average citizen vs politician vs climate scientist all have very different views, which are often more influenced by political affiliations than any "current evidence" as you put it.
I will almost definitely accept if you clarify this, barring some nebulous category like "anyone who believes in climate change."
The resolution needs a lot of clarification IMO. What part of it is misunderstood? Misunderstood by whom?