args

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

My opponent kept mentioning that I was making claims without backing them. I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change. Of course my opponent clarified that the real debate is how much CO2 has an impact and whether it is miniscule. So they would say some measure that CO2 is a major player in changing the climate. That evidence is in trends in the atmosphere where lower layers are heating up and upper layers are not. This is a sign of CO2 causing the heating. On top of that, use my opponents point that if venus didn't have as much CO2 they would be significantly cooler. This proves that there is significant correlation between CO2 and climate. Then throw in how much CO2 humans throw into the atmosphere and what trends we are seeing now and conclude for yourself. This all rest the case that climate change is being effected by men. My opponent is probably going to argue that they need to see cold hard numbers, but this is not grounds to throw out the logic I have provided. Its impossible to measure with certainty exactly how much people are impacting. But the logic is there and evidence does point to CO2 being the main cause. Also, just in case my opponent isn't sure that CO2 is coming from people, I ask he or she look to this evidence again that shows the carbon cycle was working naturally until industrial CO2 overloaded it. https://www.newscientist.com... My opponent is always saying that the correlation is not strong. For this just keep in mind the physical signs we are seeing that it is CO2 such as the atmospheric patterns of heating showing that CO2 is the cause of this, not other signs. It doesn't get much more scientific. My opponent writes "Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today." http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...... Of course the graph they is of one place which is a spotlight fallacy. You can't point to one location. Also the largest difference in temperatures is in 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10,000 years. When my opponent quotes me saying the temperature todays is unnatural, they misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that extreme temperatures haven't occurred naturally. I meant that we would expect the dramatic changes to be much further apart. In the years before the recent era major changes in climate were rare and on somewhat of a cycle of hot to cold and back with even spacing of time. now we are seeing changes much more erratically and quickly. My opponent is arguing that man made climate change has not been proven with fool proof certainty and has turned this into an evidence debate. So far this debate has been a debate of clashing evidence that cancel out each-others claims. There has been a lot of research on each side that can just as reliably disprove the other. At this point it is time to look to logical claims and each side ought to put up some logic to the claim. I have given a clear thought process as to why men and women have had an impact on the climate. I would like to see logical sequential ideas that lead to the notion that climate change must be all natural. Thanks for this debate to this point so far.