args

Anthropogenic climate change.

My opponent first makes the argument that man-made Co2 can't be the problem. The reason being is that Co2 is only a small part of the gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. Secondly, that man-made Co2 emissions are much less than natural Co2 emissions. The problem with this is my opponent is only taking a small part of the picture. Trying to argue down main stream science with faulty logic and withholding information. My opponent's argument about man-made Co2 is a cherry picking fallacy. "Logical Form: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made climate change. Next, my opponent states that humans only generate a small portion of the Co2 compared to natural emissions. This is another cherry picking fallacy. [5] Yes, humans generate far less Co2 that natural, but the natural Co2 is absorbed by nature too, thus the naturally generated Co2 is canceled out by the natural absorption. The anthropogenic Co2 is not naturally absorbed and thus accumulates. For more information about the global carbon cycle follow link seven. [7] Furthermore, even small amounts of Co2 can cause an amplification effect also known as a positive feedback cycle. This is why even a small amount of Co2 increase can cause dramatic changes to the climate. "The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [8] My opponent then contends that climate change is political and has to do with corrupt industry. Yet, big oil is also powerful and politically influential. It would make more sense that the anti-man-made climate change movement is funded by a corrupt big oil and other fossil fuels interest groups. The 90th richest person on the planet owns 11.3 billion from oil alone. A person can only imagine how powerful and how much money all the oil in the world is worth and the oil industry is worth. "the vast formation of oil-bearing rock that sits beneath much of North Dakota and Montana. With his 72% ownership stake in publicly traded Continental, Hamm is now worth $11.3 billion, making him the 90th richest person on the planet, according to Forbes newly released annual ranking of the world’s billionaires."[9] Finally, my opponent suggests no alternative explanation for why the Earth's temperatures continue to increase. Whether my opponent thinks the temperatures are not increasing or are increasing but by non-made man causes is ambiguous. In contrast, I offer main stream science to tell how and why the Earth's temperatures are increasing. Sources 5. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 6. http://www.space.com... 7. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. http://www.forbes.com...