args

Climate Shift

Pro has accused me of insulting him, I have done no such thing. Quite the opposite has been demonstrated by pro. Twice he has made comments focused on my person and not the argument at hand. "What a surprisingly short response" "What a rude and poorly thought response" Perhaps I should not have accepted this debate, but after seeing how Pro had attempted to set up a "slam dunk" format that included 2 out of 3 points that are impossible to argue against. 1) global warming is real. I reiterate that the FACT we do not currently live on a frozen planet is impossible to argue against. The FACT that ice age specialized species such as the wooly mammoth are now extinct because the ice age has ended can NOT be argued against. Pro's first point does not actually require intellectual debate. 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. This is equally irrelevant as Pro's first point. Regardless of the cause of climate change, be it man made or a natural cycle, it is our instinct to survive. This point is stating the obvious. In closing I wish to reiterate that this debate's only arguable point was #2, is climate change man made. I accepted this debate anyway in an attempt to overcome the obvious "slam dunk" framework that Pro had stacked in his/her favor. Furthermore Pro's entire argument about point #2 was based upon a consensus that doesn't exist unless you exclude 66% of published papers on this issue thereby cherry picking your statistics. The huge wall of info graphics and other data provided by Pro amounted to a fear mongering lecture of pseudo scientific prophecy. We don't even have accurate climate change models that predicted the 20 year pause in global warming, until after it was already observed and we adjusted our old models to account for this new information. Because of this, Pro's predictions about the year 2100 can even be taken seriously nor are they relevant to the only arguable question in this debate. Is climate shift man made... I trust the voters will see through Pro's attempt to manipulate their emotions with prophecy of doom.