Overpopulation: The Truth In Numbers.

Pro. The Rounds held a 10k limit. This is the highest I could set it, but is the limit none-the-less. It's poor conduct to post well beyond the limit, and into the Comment Section. I will reply to as much as the 10k Limit allows for.----------------------------------This does not account for the reported contribution to carbon dioxide emissions. According to (3), "it is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year."1.5 billion tons of CO2 is only a number, not a statistic. By this, I mean it's meaningless. It equals only 1.5 gigatonnes.This makes up around 0.178% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere. This number is easily made up for by the current system, where (like in the US) Forests are getting larger, and are growing 42% larger than Harvest.(1) As we can see in the above image, while cutting down 2 trees make a one time deposit of 1,200 lb of CO2, the 3 tree replacing them will consume at least 12,600+ lbs in their lifespan.(2)1) http://tinyurl.com...2) http://tinyurl.com...Your messurements on the number of forests lost only account for Deforestation, and doesn't take into account forest growth. It's simply a cherry picking. This can be seen in the US, where '215,200 hectacres are lost each year.'(3) The number's listed never account for regrowth, as again the US's forests are larger today than 100 years ago(2).3) http://tinyurl.com...The act of deforestation accounts for up to a third of the total anthropogenic carbon dioxide discharge according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) Your sources is horribly wrong, as is your statistic.Human's release 29 gigatons of CO2 in the air. Around 3% of total emissions. Deforestation would make up only 5% of total Human Emissions, and again, only 0.178% of all emissions.(4)4) http://tinyurl.com...The effects of deforestation are due to not the replanting of the trees, but the removal of them, and in fact they do not contribute a large amount of oxygen to the atmosphereOxygen has nothing to do with this...With forests larger today than 100 years ago, your argument is unwarranted. There are 400 billion trees in the world today,(5) If the US deforests 1 billion trees, and grow 1.5 billion, than after 50 years, the forests will be 25 billion trees larger. While 50 billion trees were removed, 75 billion were regrown. It's in investment profit, and the US's larger forests are a testiment to it's success.5) http://tinyurl.com...This does not stop us from committing the act of deforestation.In total, CO2 make's up a small portion of the Greenhouse Effect, with only a GWP multiplier of 1. Tree Deforestation's 1.5 gigatons of CO2 account for 0.0064%of the total Greenhouse Effect.(6)6) http://tinyurl.com... The act of Deforestation is not bad, nor a problem... It's only a problem if we aren't fixing it. I concede that due to the efforts we put towards reforestation, we help to mitigate the problems we are creating due to deforestation.case closed.Global warming is the result of a rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere since the late 19th century.A total increase of 1.3*F.(7) With Human's making up around 0.28% of all the increased Greenhouse Effect, we are responsible for around 0.003*F. The difference in temperature from day to day across the year is larger.7) http://tinyurl.com..."the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005.That is irrelevant. Being the largest is as natural as being the smallest. We do in fact know that Nature can reach that high on it's own, therefore saying that it reaching that high makes it man-made is unwarranted. In the Mesozoic period, long before man, it reached 2000-4000 ppm.(8) 7000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. While this doesn't prove it's not man-made, it does make any claim that it's too big to be naturial unwarrented.8) http://tinyurl.com...These chemicals include many which were not around previous to the pre-1750s.These man-made chemicals like CFCs make up around 0.072% of the total Greenhouse Effect. Equalling 0.00009*f increase.a graph of the Glacial-Interglacial Ice Core Data is shown for the past 600,000 years. It shows that within the past 255 years the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 379 ppm. You are bringing up simple numbers, but are not actually debating my argument with them. Increase and Descrease in ppm occurs all the time, naturally. Looking at the chart shown in R2, you will see how naturally the rate at which ppm increases and decreases changes on a regular basis. Just because it started changing 255 years ago does not mean it is man-made.Now, my opponent has stated that the effects of mankind on the climate are negligible. The data above shows that this is not the case, and that Industrialization of nations is a direct cause to anthropocentric global warming.The data above shows nothing more than how climate is changing, as it always has. The above data only makes assumptions about human involvement. No hard data specifically links human's to it.The data only says that climate is changing and human's exist, a case of Post Hoc. Throughout Human's existance, temperature and CO2 have risen and fallen, as is seen in the Roman Warming and Mineon Warming and the Little Ice Age. While they were not as large of an increase as the current, we have been through 3-4 warming periods, one is going to be larger than the others.These are just the reasons for why man is one of the causes of global warming. Are only reason's you think... Claiming an assumption to be fact is terrible debating. One of the problems that we face is pollution, which global warming contributes to. I will now show you the hard data... The first chart shows the percent of the Greenhouse Gas (with GWP multiplier added in, and baselines measured) while that second chart shows the percent of each that human's cause.GWP Multipliers are as follow...Water Vapor = 0.25CO2 = 1Methane = 21N2O = 310Misc = Depends. 9) http://tinyurl.com...The health effects of air pollution are egregious.People's health today is of far higher quality than any prior year. Despite Obesity, the overall Health of the world is growing year by year. In fact, obesity rates amoung children are dropping(10). Health is not a problem.10) http://tinyurl.com...Soil contamination is when hazardous substances mix with the naturally occurring soil.Both Government and Large Companies use tactics for fixing soil and keeping land usable. This isn't an issue.and is only recently being addressed Therefore it's not a problem. Overpopulation implies we have grown to the point where we can not fix our negative influence.This also applies to Global Warming. If Global Warming is completely man-made, than it still doesn't prove we have begun Overpopulating because Global Warming is easily fixed.This also Applies to Water Population.The Pro must prove we have, without a doubt, begun Overpopulation and can no longer fix our negative influence. If we can fix our influence, than we haven't begun Overpopulating, we've just become wasteful.The problem with our food supply is not that of quantity, but of distribution.This does not imply Overpopulation. It implies we don't like sharing... If the World can no longer feed everyone, we have begun overpopulating it... It can still feed us... At most, it can feed over 36 billion people.The Resolution is that we have begun Overpopulation, not that we've became a greedy culture.It is estimated that nearly 870 million people, or approximately 1/8 people, are chronically undernourished The Pro, like so many, through around numbers, but not data. Is 870 million bad? Yes, but the number isn't relevant, the percent is. Since 1990, the population has increased by 1.8 billion, the number of hungry has decreased by 130 million.(11,12)The percent of hungry has decreased greatly over time, a sign that we are becoming a better species, not that we are overpopulating.11) http://tinyurl.com...12) http://tinyurl.com...The rest of the Pro's argument falls into the prior statements.The World Bank estimated that 1.345 billion people live on $1.25 a day or less (34).This is irrelevant to Overpopulation. The Pro is only bringing up typical social issues, not Overpopulation issues. The Mideval Times saw a tiny population around 200 million, and they had far worse unemployeement and pay. Same in the Roman Period.Social Issue =/= Overpopulation.=========================================================================The average person eats 2 lbs of food a day.It'll take half the food we are already producing to feed everyone adaquately. This is only a portion of what we can produce.The Pro has spent over 10,000 characters listing off fixable problems, miusreprented numbers, and irrelevant issues. Unemployeement, Low pay, Underfed... These are social issues, and they have been decreasing for centuries. While population increases, quality of life (food, paycheck, etc...) increase, and social issues (hunger, unemployeement, poor wealth) have decreased over time.With this, I conclude that not only have we not Overpopulating the world, but that we are growing as a civilization able to grow much, much bigger.I pass it on to Pro.