args

Climate change

Final round. No new arguments and no new proof. In this round we will try to conclude and to balance the arguments presented. The debate crystallized around 2 central issues: credibility/significance of authority and interpretation of available data. With regard to the first point it became clear that the debate shifted from the credibility of scientists supporting human induced GW to the credibility of scientists and groups negating GW. This was only natural since there is more to attack and defend on the side of people negating human induced GW. Con managed to show that there was suspicion about interference in science on the side of IPCC (and IPCC only). I proved that not only all the proof presented by Con is financed by oil industry (Exxon is only one example, it didn't have to pay for all the research negating GW), but also that oil industry edited a science report which was wrote by independent scientists. Con made no reference to this Machiavellian strategy in his speech. Con also conceded that GW scientists have no secret agenda. My proof showed that people that negate GW have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. Given the excellent record of oil companies in seeking the truth and helping their communities the reader can judge for himself/herself if the science provided by their scientists reflects the truth. In the end it is more probable that independent scientists are right and scientists financed by good willing oil companies are biased. It is hard to convince somebody of the truth if he is paid to ignore it. In the second part of the debate the reader can surely see that Con is very good at constantly changing his strategy to respond to my arguments. First he ignores the Venus example (round 1), then he does some calculations that I show to prove the Co2 sensitivity of climate (round 2&3), then he says that Venus is not actually relevant even if he agreed to use it as a case study (round 4). As his argument and his source don't explain why Venus is not appropriate for the debate, it should be taken into consideration when evaluating the outcome of this debate. I Venus is taken into consideration and correlated with the data provided by Con in the 2nd and 3rd round and the graph I have provided for illustrative purposes, then it shows that initial increases can lead to significant effects in warming the climate. This proves the topic I am advocating for. The proof showing an increase of mean temperatures and the argument regarding the balance of input and output were never clearly attacked by Con. Instead Con pointed out different causes that drive climate. When it was clear that it was not enough to prove alternate causes Con tried to redefine the "significant" word so that I would have to prove that Co2 drives climate change. As this is a straw man strategy I did not engage in this discussion. Instead I proved a significant effect. Also Con used a double standard with regard to the issue presented. The Co2 Theory must exactly predict everything while alternate causes don't have to. If we apply the same principle on Con causes they don't stand careful analysis. With regard to the quote from a "BBC documentary" [sic] I refrain from listing all the false data provided by the movie ("The Great Global Warming Swindle") as this would be new proof. I will only point out something that already appeared in the debate and on which both me and Con agree. The movie states that there is no financing of denial (sic!) of human induced GW. This is only one among numerous errors of the movie. It is good that I didn't have to defend An Inconvenient Truth. In the end I won credibility and I won Venus. The reader can either vote for Pro or wait to see if the Co2 theory is wrong. http://xkcd.com... I thank Con for an educated debate and the reader for his patience in reading this lengthy discussion.