args

Climate change is a fraud

Your point about surveys not asking if scientists considered the warming a problem is a fair one. However, You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. One example is a 2012 study by Paerl and Paul published in the journal Water Research found that climate change is likely to increase the frequency of cyanobacteria algal blooms in nutrient-rich waters; these blooms outcompete green algae and lead to low-oxygen levels in the water which kill fish and other aquatic life. Scientists also agree warming waters will dissolve more carbonic acid and lead to coral bleaching; this will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and other highly biodiverse marine ecosystems. If you're going to point to a lack of scientific consensus as evidence against climate change, Then the existing scientific consensus on plate tectonics should be evidence that it is true. If you believe all the world's scientists are wrong, Why are we even discussing what their position is? 2. My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Given that over a million people have died of the coronavirus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. That said, You encounter the same problem as with plate tectonics; by ignoring the scientific consensus, You make this whole discussion a non-starter. The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. 3. Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. I'm glad to see you at least agreed with 4 (or didn't see it as objectionable enough to post a response to). 5. The first sentence of that quote you posted from NOAA clearly states that tree rings are proxies for temperature as well as precipitation. The two are closely related after all. How often do you have an unseasonable drought without it being hot? I certainly can't think of any times. Peer review as a process is designed to discourage fraud. In science, Academic integrity is everything. You can't lie about your findings or funding at all without destroying your reputation. It's a zero-tolerance system; one strike, You're out. Peer review weeds out corrupt scientists who cannot be trusted to do science honestly and bars them from further publication in reputable journals. Since science has the goal of improving human understanding of the universe, There is absolutely no reason for a scientist to invert their graphs or fudge their data without ulterior motives. What motives could possibly exist for faking climate change? The renewable sector is nowhere near as profitable as the fossil fuel sector; the latter would be a much better candidate for making money off of faulty data than the former, As we have seen. I look forward to this last round. If you have any final arguments you would like to hit me with, I will do my best to respond in my closing statement. Best of luck!