Environmental Protection

I will now submit my rebuttal. I notice several technical fallacies in my opponent's argument, without even going into detail. First, he violated the debate rules agreed to at the beginning of the debate. How? Notice that his argument is more of a response to an opponent rather than as an address to listening audience. This qualifies it as a rebuttal, and since rebuttals are allowed in Round 3 only, then this is a violation of terms. Secondly, though my opponent makes several claims, he fails to back them up with even one source. How are we to know what he says is even slightly accurate, since he has produced no evidence to back up his claims? Take, for example his beginning argument: "The concern with overpopulation has nothing to do with the amount of land. It has to do with what humans have done to the Earth. Humans have exploited Earth's resources, destroyed natural areas, caused the extinction of half of wildlife, have polluted water, the air, caused extreme climate change, and there are many more. There is hope to turn this around, and that is environmental protection laws. " There are many claims in this argument, but no real substance. How have we "caused the extinction of half of wildlife", as you claim? Or what evidence have you submitted that backs up your claims that we "caused extreme climate change"? None, so far as I can see. Let us continue: "Global temperatures have rised at a rate naturally impossible. Normally, global temperatures cool. The Earth formed from molten asteroids. Millions of years ago, there were humid jungles at the poles, which are usually the coldest regions of the planet. Sea levels were also higher millions of years ago. " Again, we have little evidence that this is more than opinion. While it is not impossible that there were once jungles at the poles, that doesn't mean it is widely accepted as factual. It is also still heavily debated upon whether or not the earth is "millions of years old". I just finished a debate on creationism versus evolution, and studying for that debate showed that it is still a divided issue. "Scientific studies indicate that extreme weather events such as heat waves and large storms are likely to become more frequent or more intense with human-induced climate change. " Another common, albeit not backed up, myth. According to Friends of Science: "The IPCC claims that global warming will result in more severe weather. This doesn't make any sense, as most storms are caused by a difference in temperatures of colliding air masses. If CO2 warms the Polar Regions there will be smaller temperature differences, and less severe storms. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, severe storms. " (1) "When it comes to glaciers, they naturally do expand. However, man made climate change is melting them. Several scientific studies show that in 20-40 years, all Ice in Antarctica will likely melt. " Unfortunately, other data shows otherwise. Again, from Friends of Science: "Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It"s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. " Ice shelves will not melt in Antarctica. Instead, they will continue to melt and then refreeze again, same as they have done all throughout history. "But these are just my opinion. 97% of climatologists believe in climate change and not just because of CO2 emissions. " Well, first of all, appeal to authority based on the percentage of believers in any particular theory is not good large, nor sustainable argument. It really doesn't matter if 97% of climatologists think that way. It could be argued that there were once 97% of scientists who believed in a flat earth, but I doubt you believe that now. And why should you? Supposedly better data has been submitted now, which changes the way people think. And there may be another reason climatologists claim to believe in climate change, even though there appears to be little evidence for it. Take another look at my Round 2 section entitled "An Ulterior Motive? " This concludes my Round 3 rebuttal, and my portion of arguing for the debate. I look forward to my opponent's round three rebuttal, before we turn the debate over to the site voters. Thank you Pro for graciously debating this topic with me and thank you DDO for hosting the debate. Sources: 1. . https://www.friendsofscience.org...