args

Anthropogenic climate change.

What a disappointing debate. The instigator did not provide one thoughtful argument that mankind is causing climate change, only a source that sates 97% of government funded scientists want more funding to study the issue of CO2 causing climate change. Since, scientists just don't know what the cause it requires more study. Yet, alarmist activists want every human on the planet to reduce their living standards based on possible impacts. While, the respondent to this debate provided a simple common sense discussion about the small amounts of CO2 mankind produces compared with nature. Man's less than 4% annual contributions to CO2 emissions would be considered a measurement error in a science lab. If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4% difference between results it would be considered a success. Yet, alarmists are using this tiny amount as the basis of their argument. In any other context this would be laughed at. Most people that live in cities look around only noticing the tiny part of the planet that men have modified for their comfort. With mankind's continued fight against nature, it would take back the urban areas very quickly. Nature is a robust and complex system. The planet Earth has taken a beating in the past and will in the future. Life will survive, as well as mankind. For a person to state that nature can not handle a 4% increase of CO2 in a complex system is simply naive. The instigators responses were at best weak. The accusation of a cherry picking fallacy is fallacious at best. The total CO2 emissions were included to demonstrate the extremely small amount that mankind was responsible for. Thus, bring in nature's capacity to absorb large amounts of CO2 was not necessary. A 4% error in nature's absorbing capacity and all of mankind's CO2 has be removed from the system. Looking at the IPCC's numbers nature absorbs more than it produces. Using the alarmist's logic, if mankind was not producing excess CO2 the earth would be on the verge of global cooling. There is very few alarmist out there that would be calling for mankind to increase CO2 emissions in this case. Anthropogenic climate change on Venus is a tough sell but I'm sure welfare scientists have requests for funding in at this time. Mankind does not understand planet Earth, and have a geographic advantage. Any attempt at understand Venus' climate is a pretense of knowledge. It could be there is a lot of CO2 due to heat, instead of the opposite. In total, the con side of this debate has provided the best arguments against anthropogenic climate change, by simply pointing out the small amounts of CO2 emitted by mankind