R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science...
Anthropogenic climate change.
R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. " Chang29 My opponent mistakes scientists skeptical and conservative perspective as doubt. Can science 100% proven man-made climate change? No, but neither can scientists 100% proven humans or reality exists. [10] Scientists work in probability. The best science can offer is that humans and reality probably exist. Just as man-made climate change probably exists. Humans desire there is a 100% chance of x happening and a 0% chance of y happening. Yet, as humans we don't have the luxury of omniscience. We cannot afford the risk of waiting for more accurate methods and technology. Given the available evidence there is about a 97% chance that man-made climate change exists, is killing people, and will continue to kill people. Now we can act upon the 97% chance, a huge risk, or act upon the 3% chance, a small risk. Then, depending upon whether climate change is correct or not four possibilities emerge. A. If we act upon the 97% chance and then later find out we were wrong, that aliens or some other extremely unlikely scenario was causing climate change, we can feel confident that we took the best course of action given our current knowledge. Little criticism is likely. B. We act upon the 97% chance and are correct in our assessments. We will be correct and know we performed the correct course of action. C. We act on the 3% chance and are incorrect, then we will be receive harsh criticism for not acting upon the best available data. D. 3% option, and we are correct. Everyone will be happy, but confused. For years to come people will question, how did you know that climate change wasn't real? Did you have a psychic ball? This is the most idealistic scenario and most unlikely. As for my opponent's accusation of an appeal to emotion fallacy, this seems like an extremely probable scenario and thus is logical. I contend that the author of the peer reviewed article was logically coherent when arguing that are grandchildren would blame us for inaction. "Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. " [11] My opponent makes a strange analogy between plastic blankets and greenhouse gases. First I've already explained that Venus has a higher concentration of Co2 and is warmer. Second, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy, using the owner of a greenhouse as the authority figure. My opponent never adequately explains why a second sheet of plastic wouldn't make the green house warmer for longer. In fact, an insulation effect would most likely cause the greenhouse to become warmer for longer. Think wearing multiple sweaters in winter. More insulation in a house makes the house stay warmer for longer. As for a scientific consensus equaling religion, my opponent's argument seems to misunderstand what a scientific consensus is. "So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer." [12] In summary, the weight of evidence for science change is so overwhelming that scientists are no longer arguing and thus at a consensus. I thank my opponent for a difficult and respectful debate. Sources 10. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com... 11. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 12. http://www.skepticalscience.com...