They just assumed that the issue was important or urgent....
Climate change is a fraud
My opponent has used the same authoritarian approach used by climate scientists. He assumes because something has become accepted that it can't be later disputed. Quote - I still can't tell if you are claiming that the climate is not changing at all or if you believe it is changing but for natural reasons rather than anthropogenic. Reply - My opening statement is "The science of human caused climate change is faulty" Thus, You have twice doubted what this debate is about when I have clearly stated that it is about human caused climate change and not about natural changes. Thus, My opponent is being totally obnoxious and difficult to deal with and is not acting in a civil manner as required by debating rules. If you are voting please deduct points for this annoying repetition and harassment. Quote - The 97% number may not be exactly on-the-nose, But it is around that. Reply - My opponent has failed to acknowledge the deceptive tactics used by the surveys which ask loaded questions and which assume many false assumptions hidden within the questions. For example - None of the questions asked any of the scientists if they thought that climate change was an urgent or important issue. They just assumed that the issue was important or urgent. Thus, Therein lies the deception of not specifying if the problem was worthy of worrying about. Note - It was not even considered or discussed in any of the questions. Note - Only 64 % of qualified meteorologists agreed with the survey in it's corrupted format. Thus, 36 % of climatologists must have disagreed. Note - Of 3, 146 scientists that were surveyed only 77 of these surveys were used in the results. Thus, 77 experts divided by 75 agreements equals 97%. Yes, Folks that's how they got the the magical 97% - Truly amazing or what! Thus, We can plainly see that mathematical manipulation is a specialty of the so called 'climate scientists'. Quote - The mass of humans V's. The mass of Earth does not mean we cannot effect the Earth. Reply - My opponent didn't address the mathematical absurdity of the mass ratio difference between the Earth and human mass. It is the equivalent of 3 grains of sand (humans) on a 100 mile beach (Earth). Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that those 3 grains of sand can produce they are never going to effect the temperature of a 100 mile beach of sand. Quote - Atmospheric CO2 has no true saturation point Reply - Again, More lies and deceptions. After the 80 parts / million point is reached any further gains are so small they are not worth any consideration. Note - The decline in effect or infra red reflection becomes exponentially less. Quote - The corruption of a single public figure does not negate the science Reply - Maurice Strong is just the tip of the corruption iceberg. All climate scientists are corrupt liars and deceivers. Quote - Tree rings are not the only proxy used to estimate historic and prehistoric climate trends- Reply - Sorry, I forgot to mention that inverting graphs is the second most common method. Note - Tree rings growth suggests water availability and are independent of temperature. This has been proven with many recent tests. Study - Insensitivity of tree-ring growth to temperature and precipitation. PLOS ONE