args

Climate change is a fraud

Thank you for clarifying that for me! The reason I asked is because often times people who deny that humans cause climate change also deny that the globe is getting warmer. I knew you denied anthropogenic climate change, But I didn't know if that was because you thought the climate was currently stable. Now I know going forward that you accept that the globe is getting warmer, But not that humans cause it. So let's address your objections: 1. The fact that something is widely accepted as true does not mean it cannot be questioned. However, It is more reasonable to question things which do not have evidence supporting them. I am sorry I could not link the studies I mentioned above; it was not letting me post with all the links in it. I was also unable to post with the link to the 2013 study by Cook included, But you can find it at iopscience. Iop. Org (and other websites) if you search, With quotation marks, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming" on Google Scholar. This should bring you to the 2013 study by Cook which you have ridiculed. Scroll down to Table 3, And you will see that 10, 188 of the studies expressed support for the notion of anthropogenic climate change, Which is 98. 4% of those with a declared position and 34. 8% of all studies examined. The reason 66. 4% of studies expressed no position is the same reason 0% of geology studies examined in a separate study expressed a position on the theory of plate tectonics--it's not controversial. There has been so much evidence gathered that there is a consensus. Just like how physicists don't say "gravity is real" in every study they do. 2. As I explained, The human species has created enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth even though we are a relatively small portion of the total mass. Viruses and bacteria are microscopic but can cause big effects (including death) in us. So being small does not mean you can have no effect. Note also that the mere fact that humans exist has not caused the globe to warm--it's the fact that we burn so many fossil fuels. In your analogy, You said, "It doesn't matter how much heat that those 3 grains of sand can produce. [T]hey are never going to effect the temperature of a 100 mile beach of sand. " Well, If humans are the grains of sand, That's actually a faulty analogy because humans don't release the heat that warms the globe. That comes from the sun, Which has a mass over 300, 000 times that of the Earth. 3. As I said, The greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 scales logarithmically, So of course there are going to be diminishing returns in the greenhouse effect. That's not the same as a saturation point because the heat trapped is still increasing, Just more slowly. I linked a graph in my last argument showing a clear linear increase on a graph with a logarithmic scale for CO2 concentration. Note also that the most potent greenhouse gas is water. Even though the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases, The slight increase in temperature is enough to evaporate more water into the atmosphere. That warms the globe even more, Leading to greater evaporation of water and creating a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the warming. 4. The claim that every climate scientist is corrupt is so sweeping as to be completely unfounded. There are thousands of climate scientists all over the world; you can't expect every one of them to be bankrolled by special interests or be lying about their science to the public. You might, However, Expect a small minority to be corrupt, Which is what we see in the few who claim anthropogenic climate change is not happening, Who are often funded by fossil fuels or not scientists qualified in the fields they are discussing. 5. In regards to your claim about tree rings, Precipitation is easiest climate trend to measure with them, But temperature can also be estimated based on observed patterns. I don't think I can post more than one link, So I'll just refer you to NOAA's article "How tree rings tell time and climate history. " Inverting graphs is not a proxy--a proxy is a something which occurs in nature which provides information about the past, Like ice cores and geological formations. An inverted graph is an example of fraud--and one which can easily be caught by the process of peer review to stop such a study from ever making it into a reputable journal. So none of your arguments from Round 2 actually debunk climate change, But if you have any more examples, I would be happy to respond to them as well in the coming rounds!