args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand. Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument. Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can. Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing) Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period) Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s. Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined. Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007) http://i0.wp.com... Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007) http://zfacts.com... Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere. Cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other variables in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong. Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong (see earlier argument for graphs) Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic. In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct. Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote. To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus. Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing: Here is an article saying the same thing: http://www.forbes.com... Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win. I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)