Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewDianne Feinstein's climate change discussion with schoolchildren gets heated
Sen. Dianne Feinstein clashed Friday with a group of children over climate change policy, criticizing their requests that she back the Green New Deal, accusing them of presenting
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent is correct the Earth's temperature has been hotter a long time ago. This falls into the stage 4a of climate change denial. [2] Meaning my opponent accepts the first part of the resolution but rejects the second half. The problem is not the temperature itself, but the rate of change. High rate of temperature change historically has lead to mass extinction. In summary, species including humans will struggle to adapt to such changes, if adaptation to such a change is even possible. [3] Impact, high rate of temperature change equals mass extinctions, which are a threat. Next my opponent uses information sourced from an ultra conservative website called the dailycaller.com I will first attack the source of the argument and then the argument itself. The dailycaller is an ultra-conservative website. You can verify this yourself by seeing the news story against Hilary placed first on the dailycaller.com. "ultra-conservative Daily Caller" [4] Next, lets take a look at the argument. Basically this is a reiteration of the first argument and again falls into stage 4a of denial. [2] Yes, not all the predictions came true. Yet, the overall premise, that co2 and temperature are rising an alarming rates is true. Thank you for taking the time to debate. I think it takes real courage to speak what you perceive is the truth against the majority. Sources. 2. http://grist.org... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://www.newscorpse.com...
CNN is giving 2020 Democrats 7 hours to talk about climate change
CNN will host a seven-hour marathon of interviews with 10 presidential candidates about climate change on Wednesday beginning at 5 pm Eastern as part of its climate crisis town hall. A live stream of the town hall will air on CNN.com. You can also stream it via CNN apps on iOS, Android, Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Chromecast, and Android TV. The forum will also be broadcast on SiriusXM Channels 116, 454, 795, and the Westwood One Radio Network.
Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
For the purpose of this debate I propose the following definitions. Developed countries is a term used to identify the wealthiest nations in the world, which include Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. (ww Norton & co. economics textbook) Moral obligation is a duty arising out of considerations of right and wrong (Princeton University) For our framework, we will be using utilitarianism, which is that actions should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons. Specifically, according to utilitarian philosophers Peter Singer and Henry Sidgwick, "there are moral assertions that we recognise intuitively as true... suffering is intrinsically bad, and... people's preferences should be satisfied." To the topic, this means that mitigating the effects of climate change is necessary for providing the greatest happiness to the most people. Contention 1: Developed countries are largely responsible for climate change It is common truth that industrialized nations bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because over the years, dating back to the Industrial revolution, humans have been producing greenhouse gases that have influenced Earth's atmosphere. As such it would be unfair to ask developing countries to act similarly as developed countries. "When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was formulated ... the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities was acknowledged. ... [T]his principle recognized that "The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; "Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low; "The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs."(The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) As a result, Today's developed nations are responsible for global warming and the effects of which we see today. And it is unfair to expect undeveloped world to make the same emissions reductions. Contention 2: Developed countries are the only ones with the capabilities to act on climate change No only do developed nation have the most to cut per capita, but they are also the only ones that have the technological advancements and resources to combat climate change. As such they have an obligation to use these resources to fix their planet. More importantly, the developed countries have the research capabilities to create the technology to make a green self-sustaining economy. For example, Italy for the first time has been able to utilize solar power to produce more electricity than wind power, thus accounting for nearly 3.2% of their total energy needs. In addition, by being at the forefront of this technology, Italy, a country constantly on the brink of economic disaster, has been able to become more stabilized and focus its energy on expanding its renewable energy market.(renewable energy world) Further, the developed world has the finance and expertise to develop these projects and implement and manage them all around the world. As the nations with the greatest capability, the developed world has the increased responsibility to act for the betterment of all. Contention 3: The greatest impact will come when the largest emitters of greenhouse gases make reductions. Developed countries emit the most greenhouse gases per capita, in 2008 the US emitted 17.9 tonnes compared to China's 5.3 tons per person. If reductions are made in such nations, then we will see a much bigger impact in the climate than if it came from developing nations. In addition, the developed countries with high CO2 emissions can reduce output through lifestyle changes. For example, biking to work instead of taking the car or cutting back on the junk food now and then. For developing nations, changes like that can not be made. They would have to change their entire economy and route to development to meat such needs even though they don't produce all that much in the first place. In the future, these developing nations will look to the actions of the developed world to plan for their future. By combating climate change, we ensure that everyone will eventually reach a point in which we can eliminate emissions all together. Now onto my opponents case. His first part of his case talks about the term for developed countries being to broad, but yet offered a definition for it that narrows it down to the most developed. to counter this is will offer 5 of the most developed countries that I will be basing my arguments off of for this debate. 1. Norway 2. Australia 3. Netherlands 4. United States 5. New Zealand Now onto my opponents first contention, his first contention only talks about the cost, yet cooling the ocean floor they average will only cost about 14 billion dollars and make 30 billion dollars back in agriculture growth. His second contention then talks about how climate change is uncontrollable, once again you can go back to the fact that cooling the ocean floor or simply reducing are CO2 intake will drastically decrease the weather. his 3rd contention talks about how the mitigation of climate change is not a moral obligation where he talks about how Norway is in debt almost $644.5 billion dollars, this is just giving us more of a reason to put this into place. Not only will we save money from this but we will also stop the temperatures from causing anymore mass destruction. In Conclusion Global warming is an outcome of human activities rather than a natural disaster. Without maximum action from the developed world, all countries will be ultimately affected, including the rich countries. I would also like to mention that the temperatures in afghanistan reached almsot 145 degrees over this last summer, for are soldiers that type of weather is hard to bare. Their temperatures have been increasing over 11% every year now for the last 3 years, this amount of increase could lead to world destruction by the year 2018. the time is now to take action.
Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy
Warming is beneficial Con does not dispute that warming is beneficial, and claims that what should be of concern is the rate of warming. Con offers no evidence that the rate of warming is important, he merely asserts that it is. Global temperature records have only been kept for about 130 years. [15. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Before that, temperature reconstructions are so coarse and uncertain that a claim about rates is pure speculation. Con's source for the speculation is a journalist without scientific credentials. The EPA, referencing the IPCC, contradicts Con explicitly. “Abrupt or rapid climate changes tend to frequently accompany transitions between glacial and interglacial periods (and vice versa). For example, a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere (particularly around Greenland) may have experienced warming rates of 14-28ºF over several decades during and after the most recent ice age.” [16. http://www.epa.gov... ] Con claims that in the past, changes in CO2 were always biogenic and slow. He offers no evidence of that (e.g. volcanoes), and it's irrelevant. He didn't claim harm from rapid CO2 change, only temperature change. Con says he does not believe plants are relatively starved for CO2. My assertion was supported by a reference giving hundreds of studies proving my point, whether it's from evolution or not. A table of experiments in which CO2 levels are artificially increased by about 75% shows that growth usually increases by 25% to 50%. [17. http://www.co2science.org... ] It's only been 11,000 years since the last ice age. The time scale of plant evolution is millions of years, not thousands. [18. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Those who make the climate models agree they failed. "... articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability." [19. http://online.wsj.com... There are four main sources of global temperature data, two from satellites and two from ground stations. Three of the four agree that the last decade has shown cooling. The outlier is NASA, who keeps adjusting past data to make the world warmer. The satellite data is far more trustworthy because is doesn't suffer from a lack of stations in remote areas and it doesn't suffer from the excess warmth of heat islands in developed areas. The satellites show cooling as does the HADCru data compiled in England. Having a record warm year in 2010 does not invalidate the decade trend. The summer of 2009 was the coldest on record [20. http://www.prisonplanet.com... ] Since global temperatures have been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, we would expect recent years to be among the warmest. Nonetheless, temperatures are way below what the CO2 climate models predict, so the models are invalid. The reference plotted the original data sources, and whether the site is biased or not, the data correctly shows the models were invalid. The story of an anomalous year works for a year of two, but not for a whole decade, especially when climate crisis advocates have claimed that they have accounted for everything that could possibly affect climate, Hansen's predictions are wildly at odds with the IPCC report and climate models, which are now known to be too extreme. Hansen says the oceans will rise by 25 meters, while the IPCC says nine inches. Temperatures have risen at the rate of about 1 degree per hundred years until now, so we are seeing the record highs for the hundred years. However, 1 degree per hundred years is not a problem either by temperature directly or rate of increase. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. I claimed that restrictions on fossil fuel usage in the US would have little effect. Con did not dispute my claim. If we make no policy decisions to cut our CO2 emissions, we'll drop from the present 18% of world emissions to less than 5%. Con says that while the restrictions are pointless from any practical viewpoint, Con says we should do it so we can proclaim how great we are. If it didn't cost anything, that might be nice, but it costs a whole lot. 4. Attempts to significantly cut CO2 would cost trillions of dollars Con appears to agree that an expense of $25 trillions or so in the US could lower the earth's temperature by only 0.026 degree. A reduction of only 0.026 is pointless, so clearly it is no grounds for being a policy objective. Con argues that we should aim for more modest cuts. Why, if dramatic cuts have no useful effect? EPA mandates recently imposed will cost $78 billion per year for the next 90 years. That's $7 trillion spread over the 90 years. In return, according to the EPA analysis, the earth's temperature will be reduced by 0.00375° C. http://wattsupwiththat.com... That is not measurable. We should not spend large sums to achieve a result that is not measurable. By comparison, $15.6 billion was spent on AIDS research in a recent year, a shortfall of $7.7 billion. [21. http://www.avert.org... ] There is no justifications for a policy that spends $78 billion on a result that cannot even be detected if successful while the money is much better spent on things that do measurable good. Con ignored the lost opportunity costs. The US has a critical dependence on foreign oil and badly needs jobs and tax revenues. Yet, over $300 trillion in energy reserves are locked away for no reason other than fear of CO2. The government gets about 40% of oil profits directly in taxes, and more from the incomes of employees in the energy business. Our deficit is about $15 trillion and the economy is a disaster. We need the revenue. 5. Con claims consensus Skeptics of CO2 crisis have long agreed global temperatures are rising. However, climate models predicting things like a six degree rise by 2010 are disproved. Con seems to agree that policies of inhibiting CO2 will cost trillions of dollars and have no practical effect. Statements of imminent danger do not change the basic fact that policies to suppress CO2 in the US are destroying the economy by draining resources and fostering foreign dependence, while having no measurable effect on climate. Scientists have no special authority to claim that pointless policies should be instituted. A far better approach is to allowi economic growth and use the prosperity to adapt to climate change, regardless of what causes climate change. Prosperity can support things like water projects that make a real difference in food production. That will have a much larger effect than a degree or two of warming. We should also continue research on climate. Climate engineering solutions have been offered than would artificially reduce world temperatures at relatively low cost. [22. http://www.usatoday.com... ] The objection to climate engineering is that climate is so poorly understood that the effects cannot be assessed. That claim is odd, since CO2 crisis claims involve climate being completely understood. The crisis advocates are on to something this time; climate is not well understood. Con tried a character attack on all MIT climate scientists, Calling them “nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists.” Con didn't respond to the reasons for the new effort. Even the biased Wikipedia came up with a list of 75 reputable climate scientists skeptical of CO2 crisis. [23. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The resolution is affirmed.
Wrong to fight climate change through environment-damaging nuclear.
It is true that nuclear energy is 0-emission in its inherent processes, but it is wrong to sacrifice one environmental principle (local ecosystems and human safety) in order to push another (climate change).
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change
Thank you opponent My opponent has two main arguments and I will refute them both and show how I win this debate. 1. Their first main argument is that developing countries should have the moral obligation as well This is wrong because 1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation 2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating. 3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related. 2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. 3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. Also, a citizen of a developed country represents a developed country because if you leave the USA during lets say World War 2. If you get arrested, in Germany, you probably were arrested because you were American (no racial/ethnic discrimination intended) Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention. If anyone (judge/judges or opponent) wants any evidence sites from my case, just ask. Thanks you for your time, opponent and judge/judges Please vote for the pro/aff
Developed countries have to support developing countries in the fight for climate change.
I am strongly in favor of the motion that developed countries are obliged to give aid to developing countries in the fight against climate change. We need change in the economy all around the world independent of where it is working, in order to have any chance of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants to a level that results in a conservation of our planet for later generations. The contributing factors to these emissions have to be tackled and therefore they first have to be differentiated. We have the contribution of developed countries like the US and the states of Europe which is huge and besides the contribution of China one of the major problems which need attendants. The thing is that in these countries we have sufficient technological advances and also an economy that is capable of switching over to a sustainable economy. This is obviously not an easy task and needs both incentives and requires a great amount of recourses to enable this change, but even if it is done the problem is, that such a change is absolutely futile, if it isn"t coupled with a similar change in developing countries. And here we have to differentiate again between countries like China which is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the moment, but has a working economy which is able to pay for such a change and has also the incentives to create the change, and the other developing countries just barely beginning to build an economy that is competitive and where the technological advances as well as the technological knowhow just lacks. While the first category is one of the most influential in a fight against climate change, we have good reason to hope, that with the right incentives in the developed world and the increasing change to a sustainable economy there, it will lead to a change in the economy as they need to stay in the market and in the technological race. The major problem, that the developed world can"t change with its own action without the use of direct financial and material aid, is in the last case of the countries just beginning to industrialize into having economies that are competitive. In these cases we have an economy that needs mostly a fast rate of growth and that is also growing fast already. The thing is that for a fast growth you need cheap energy and at the moment coal or gas are still the cheapest way of obtaining energy. Therefore those countries with a weak economy won"t care about whether or not the energy they use is sustainable or friendly to the environment, but they will just use them, as they have no incentive to change their behavior. This will be happening especially due to the fact that they feel to have the right to use those sources of energy similar to us as we have used them for a long time, making us the main contributors to global warming. They feel it is their good right also to use their resources to grow their economy. Sadly we can"t allow them to do that because if every developing country were allowed to use as much and as long those energy sources as we have, the environment would be damaged beyond repair as well as for all future generations. Therefore we have to prevent them from using these energy sources even though they rightly have the feeling that it is their good right to use them just as much as we did. We therefore need incentives. One is given by nature in reaction to the destruction of our environment and climate change, as it is especially affecting those countries in development. As this isn"t sufficient we have to give the other part of the incentive which can be nothing but financial aid in order to pay for them to build a sustainable economy helping our climate. We can"t not do it, because else all our work in our own economy is not helping as other developing countries with the growing economy due to them being able to produce cheaper with the cheaper energy, will just emit even more bringing no net benefit. To your points. Firstly you say that it is futile to help them, as there won"t be sufficient progress. While I have to agree that the progress is not enough, I have to answer that it isn"t enough anywhere in the world. In order to bring about bigger effects in their industry, leading to better results for our climate it takes even more incentive and especially cheaper technology in order for them to use it. The problem is that we cannot say that, because we haven"t changed everything and our work hasn"t been as efficient, we will stop the effort as any action against global warming in our industry is absolutely dependent upon the success even if gradually as it else destroys once more all our progress. Your second point seems to be more in favor of aid going to the developing countries. While they are increasingly dependent upon the aid as their economy is weak we have the problem that withdrawing financial aid, won"t benefit their economy. They would still be dependent upon the aid but just wouldn"t get it, leading to their economy breaking down. The problem is that their economy isn"t competitive if compared to the developed world and they won"t be able to grow or device better technology in order to increase the stability of their economy. The only thing they can do is produce things cheaper, which is done by exploiting workers and using cheap energy leading to climate change. Therefore the reduction of aid won"t bring a strong economy in those countries, but rather a collapse leading to even more use of cheap energy affecting our climate. Therefore we need to strengthen our financial aid for those countries in order for their economy to work on a sustainable basis. Now to your last point. While it is true that developed countries having more money and more impact also have to work with other problems, I don"t agree with your conclusion that they therefore can"t afford this help. Less developed countries spend less in total, but they are also poorer. You have to look at it in light of what their financial power is and in this respect you will see that developing countries actually have even less to spend on it and still do so. The developed countries such as the US or the states of Europe use much of their financial power on other issues which are important, but they not just should but have to have and take the resources in order to fight climate change. This is because firstly they themselves have lived upon our environment destroying it up to a great extend and therefore have a duty to pay to other countries if they don"t want them to do the same what they would have every right to. Secondly because they have the greatest financial power they have again the duty to pay the most for a problem that has to be solved for the whole world. It is also absolutely necessary as else all money spend on preventing climate change is wasted, as it won"t have any effect. Therefore we have to pay it in order to actually use our money. For those reasons I conclude that it is absolutely vital that the developed countries keep up their support and also increase it.
CMV: The Green New Deal distracts from climate change, by tying climate change to left-leaning policy/rhetoric. The bill seems designed to raise republican opposition, and is a disappointment/insulting for people who believe that climate change is the #1 issue of our lifetime.
I would first recommend reading [The Green New Deal](https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf) if you haven't already, its about 14 pages, with huge spacing (about 3-4 real pages). But to summarize the bill in my own words, the Green New Deal calls for essentially every democratic agenda to be passed into law(to include climate change). As a democrat, I agree with most of the agenda items(it's literally the democratic agenda), but there is something wrong with creating a bill like this. By tying together climate change, and a plethora of other issues, like equal protection and rights for illegal immigrants, government-run(?) healthcare for all, etc, it is ensuring intense opposition by non democrats. Since I do not believe any rational human being could read the bill, and think it would get bi partisan support, my view is that there was no real intention of ever getting the bill passed into law/policy. (Sure, the gender wage gap is important, so are Native American rights... But there's no need to make that stand on a climate change bill, and doing so is insulting to the Americans who want to see huge climate change initiatives as our national policy) **The abridged, loose, logical argument:** Premise 1) If you want a bill to get passed into law, when possible, you will write it in a bi partisan way. Premise 2) Climate change can be written in a Bi-Partisan way Premise 3) The Green New Deal was not written in a bi partisan way(or was written in a partisan way). Conclusion) The Green New Deal was not written to be passed into law. (And this disappoints me, because in my opinion, climate change is the #1 issue of my lifetime.) \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Edit 1: I learned that the intent of the bill wasn't necessarily to pass something into law, but more of a political statement or some sort of rally cry. Not sure how I feel about that one or what changes, but its worth noting. (its a function of a specific type of house resolution) Edit 2: After reading some of these posts, I now realize that the Green New Deal is actually divisive within the democratic party, and received a (soft) "bipartisan" rejection in the senate. This seems to indicate the increased importance of having a specific targeted bill, as it seemed some senators did not want to go on record supporting it, because of what it said.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.
Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin. Negative thinks I only believe CO2 is speeding up the process of climate change. It most definitely is, and they are not mistaken in that. But not only is it speeding up and forcing climate change to continue, it is the main factor in this. No matter what my opponent may think, my evidence clearly showed CO2 is the largest threat. Greenhouse gases are proven to be the largest contributor to global warming, and CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas. And according to the World Meteorological Organization, the US Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the European Commission and thousands of scientists, CO2 is the largest factor. Negative may say that fluctuations in the earths orbit are the largest cause. To say that fluctuations in earths orbit are the largest cause is a bold statement. I think that by orbit fluctuations, he means that it causes Suns rays to hit the earth more. But according to NASA, solar maxima is only .1 percent higher than solar minima on average. To further my counter argument, if there had been an increase in solar output, both the stratosphere and troposphere would have warmed up. But instead, patterns show that the stratosphere has actually cooled. Meanwhile, land and the troposphere have been warming, which is no doubt due to greenhouse gases (particularly CO2). This shows that fluctuations in earths orbit, although drastically climate changing when they occur, are not occurring right now. However, the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing. Not because of orbit fluctuation, but because of greenhouse gases that trap the Suns heat. CO2 is directly responsible for global warming today. In the earlier graph, I showed how carbon emissions have increased drastically since the industrial revolution. I then linked a graph that showed temperature increase over the same time period. The fact is, since the industrial revolution, temperatures have drastically increased at a rate that would never have occurred without coal burning and that whole era. So CO2 emission IS directly responsible for global warming. The negative, in their conclusion, called my points invalid. I say the exact opposite. I stand by my points, and the facts that went with it. I most surely do not agree that their case is correct. I have just shown why their case is completely wrong. CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it. Sources: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... And sources I cited earlier.
Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions
Correlations As we can see, my opponent is playing a semantics game in attempt to salvage his defeated case. When looking at the facts, though, we see his semantic attempt is laughable. For example, in debate the resolution is like the constitution, a law of the land, correct? Yes. The wording in the resolution reads “driven”. But the definition is propelled by something [1]. Based on the definition it is extremely clear that the resolution means CO2 is the main cause, based on that fact my opponent already loses the debate. Now my opponent’s quote of myself also proves my point, as cause is defined as to make something happen [2]. The syntax of this also shows cause is usually defined as the “main” thing. For example, CO2 may be a factor, but is not the cause. And it is likely human CO2 can have the effect as it is given by alarmists. And even earlier in the round it is made blatantly clear that Pro would argue that CO2 would cause the majority of warming. Based on the resolution and my position as ‘con’, it means I would be against the resolution. The definitions of CO2 prove: “In other words, it [Co2] is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.” As con, it is obvious I am against this hypothesis furthering the claim that the debate is about the majority of warming. My opponents semantically driven claim fails. And as he never even touched my facts, I extend the argument. In hopes my opponent returns to the debate, and stops accusations of wrongdoings, which I apologize for if he truly thinks they exist, I will build upon the point I made earlier: there is no significant correlation between temperature and co2; especially within the last decade. My opponent never counters the claim in which CO2 has not a significant enough correlation to be the main factor in warming; as for it to be major the correlation should be in the range the PDO is currently in. In the majority of the time, the CO2 correlation was lacking, however the correlation really only was strong between 1980 – 90, and 1925 – 30. Note that in either of these years the correlation, overall, is extremely weak. The paper concludes, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.”[3] Other then the fact this clearly demonstrates natural factors are a more likely candidate to cause warming let me emphasis the last decade point. If the theory was correct, unstoppable global warming and high correlations would exist that would spiral out of control and we would melt! But as usual alarmist science fails. For something to be correct, it must have the ability to predict phenomena. For example, the periodic table of the elements has predicted what many of the missing elements are/where, and many have been found exactly as predicted. Co2 theory suggests warming should be extremely high… but it was zero. With a correlation of almost zero in the last decade, it essentially proves that Co2 is not a major factor and the science in which it was built is small, and non-existent [3]. No correlation no bang, no bang pro loses. He says many times my source says differently, without direct quotations from it. I have cited it many times, and took stuff out of its conclusions. Let me repeat, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.” You where saying about lying? And what evidence? A graph which I disproved and showed its correlations extremely weak, and that the PDO correlation is impeccable? As we can see, my opponent has offered no evidence other then a graph, which has weak correlation. And the graph is in my source… and the writer shows weak correlation… I prefer not to ask readers to read links, but to prove I am not lying read the summary of the paper here: http://wattsupwiththat.com... Other factors My opponent goes on a rampage. He doesn’t care. See paragraph 1-3 under correlations. He needs to prove these natural factors do not cause the majority of global warming, and that CO2 is a likely candidate. But as he cannot do this he goes into ad homeneim attacks which I have been attempting to avoid in this debate. But the funny thing is a 14 year old with newly found testosterone is keeping his cool more then a fully-grown man… So instead of rebutting this he just dismisses it based on his former semantics. These where rebutted and the point is extended. So instead of attacking my opponent, I will build upon the case already created. Lets first look at solar, a common sense look as it is the only light bulb in the oven. Many studies have come out, with little media attention no less, that make strong cases for solar forgings in climate. Sunspot number is an accepted proxy for measuring the intensity of the suns wrath. NIPCC 2011 As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2 [4]. PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [4]. Conclusions: My opponent threw all his eggs in two baskets: ad homeneim and semantics. Neither where justified, and he has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, which was given to him in round one. This is an obvious victory for con. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010) [4] S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)
Anthropogenic climate change.
I accept most of the rules of your debate, but do not accept the character limit. Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond. Since you didn't change the character limit to 10,000 within a half hour despite being online, I will use a google docs if I go over 8,000 characters, but will not go over 10,000 characters. You may do the same if you go over 8,000, but be sure not to go over 10,000 characters. Do you agree to this? If not, I'll just forfeit the debate. Definitions: Anthropogenic: "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature"[1] I felt the definition of that word may be necessary since it's a large word that many people may not have heard of before, so I defined it for the benefit of the voters. Sources: [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.
Maurice Strong - In 1971, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet, co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for the first UN meeting on the environment, held in Stockholm in 1972. This was the world's first "state of the environment" report. The Stockholm Conference established the environment as part of an international development agenda. It led to the establishment by the UN General Assembly in December 1972 of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, and the election of Strong to head it. UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led UNEP was the first UN agency to be headquartered in the third world. As head of UNEP, Strong convened the first international expert group meeting on climate change. Strong was one of the commissioners of the World Commission on Environment and Development, set up as an independent body by the United Nations in 1983. Thus, Maurice Strong was the first instigator of a United Nations led Climate Council. This is not confusing, this is fact. 2. Mauna Loa. My opponent is using information from a volcano site as being average for global CO2 levels. Hmmmmmmm????????? Does anybody with half a brain see something wrong here???????? Gee Con, that must be why the graph suddenly shot up all of a sudden because they started using a volcano site as their average. lol Good work, Swede named Knut Angstrom. lol Nut alright!!!! lol 3. Sea levels rising? If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel M"rner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr M"rner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 5. Authority fallacy? Drrrrr???? Never heard of that one before. Gee, does that mean that I should disbelieve all the IPCC and NOAA garbage? lol
Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger
Right, last round my sources had a problem, but I’ve reposted them in the comments section. I thank my opponent for the fantastic debate, and may the best arguments win. C1: Public Health First, I’d like to note that Pro hasn’t addressed my points about dengue fever or yellow fever. To argue that infections decrease in warming periods misses the fact that over the past century or so we’ve made significant strides in treatments for tropical diseases such as malaria, as well as in fighting mosquito outbreaks[cite]. My argument is that all things being equal, an increase in temperature results in an increase in the spread of mosquito-born diseases. The fact that malaria can survive outside of the tropics is rather incidental to whether or not it is more virulent in the tropics. Pro concludes that since malaria rates have decreased over time, and it has happened outside the tropics, malaria would not be affected by global warming. The problem with this is that malaria rates (and pretty much every other tropical disease rate) responds to whatever’s forcing it, just like climate. Keep your temperature steady and leave standing water everywhere and you get more malaria. Kill mosquitos and keep everything else constant and malaria rates drop. We know that malaria is more virulent in warmer areas[1]. Therefore, as the world warms, we either are faced with an increase in malaria cases or have to expand our public health infrastructure to prevent them from occurring in the first place. The first can result in an increase in deaths, the second would have to be very well planned to avoid all deaths and would still result in economic damages. Ergo, we can conclude that a warming world presents risk. As far as heat deaths, this data may be true for the UK and Germany, but it is not necessarily true universally. Many low-income areas are in hot areas rather than cold ones, so quite conceivably that could cause there to still be a net increase in fatalities. C2: Sea Level Rise I don’t argue for an apocalypse where the ocean rises twenty feet. First I’d like to note that Tuvalu has an average elevation of about six feet above sea level. The highest point is fifteen feet[2]. So it doesn’t necessarily take much to cause damage. Also, there are waves, and tides, so even if a given area would still be above average sea level, that doesn’t mean it won’t get water damage. Secondly, sea level rise isn’t going to be constant everywhere. This is due to a variety of factors, such as the gravitational pull of the Earth being slightly different in different locations, temperature variations, and tectonic plates[3]. Unfortunately for Tuvalu, it sits in what is probably the most unfortunate location a bunch of low-level coral atolls could[4]. Sea level in Tuvalu rises about three times as fast as in other locations[5]. About 2.8 inches could matter quite a bit for an island that’s about six feet above sea level when one accounts for the fact that for them it could quite possibly be more in the range of 8 inches. This same reasoning can be applied to other locations. Brazil is close to an area that has a higher sea level[6]. As to Pro’s claim that sea level is falling, the only thing that his source says that supports that is that the level fell slightly in one specific area in Western Canada, by .5 mm. That is hardly a global sea level drop, and satellite data confirms that sea level is rising[7]. C3: Ocean Acidification That same paper cited concedes that calcification would be adversely impacted. As calcifying organisms are an essential part of the food chain, this doesn’t do much to dismiss my claim that ocean acidification poses a risk. In relation to the claim that increased carbon dioxide could be beneficial to shells, experiments with increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in seawater where shells are growing refute that. Shell dissolution is far more affected than shell calcification[8], in any event. While it’s true that pH isn’t fixed in the ocean, that doesn’t mean that shifting the whole range of pH values downwards, towards the more acidic end of the scale, would necessarily be acceptable. If I’m adapted to survive climates of 10-20 degrees Celsius, and it shifts upwards two or three degrees, I’m experiencing significant environmental stress. Since a drop in pH of one (say, from four to three) is a tenfold increase, since pH is a logarithmic scale, the problem with pH is even bigger. C4: Cloud Forests It’s true that Lawton’s paper shows that deforestation is having a significant effect on the cloud forests. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from this that global warming has no effect. Modeling has demonstrated that increases in carbon dioxide would indeed affect the cloud forests[9]. Obviously deforestation has an effect to, as does general land use, but it can’t be gathered from the fact that damage to the cloud forests is caused by multiple factors that global warming has no effect. It is true that precipitation, in some regions, increases due to global warming. And it’s true that worse droughts have happened in the past. However, I must ask my opponent: Would you prefer a severe drought that is less severe than a massive drought that caused widespread damage, or would you prefer no drought at all? As Pro’s own source points out, droughts that are accompanied by warmer temperatures impact the environment more. Furthermore, global warming alters air circulation patterns, causing the distribution of moisture to change[11]. Even if all else remains equal, certain parts are going to get drier and other parts will get wetter--which has the potential for negative consequences, as noted in my source. For instance, recent droughts in the Sahel are expected to increase in severity due to global warming. Conclusion: I’ve demonstrated that the evidence points towards global warming not being due to the Sun—while I haven’t demonstrated that humans caused global warming, I don’t really need to. Given that the equations that are the current scientific consensus about how to predict warming match up with real observations, we can reasonably conclude that they are correct. Meanwhile, I’ve shown that any economic or health benefits from a warming world would be far outweighed by the costs—ocean acidification, sea level rise, loss of cloud forests, increase in heat stroke deaths, and spread of several virulent diseases. books.google.com/books?id=FhfuV22JZ_sC&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.skepticalscience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.geo.umass.edu... http://uanews.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Climate change
I accept.
Climate change
I accept the debate with full knowledge that my arguments will be completely disregarded and ignored by all voters because people on this website are all communist conspirators or completely brain dead nincompoops who believe all government propaganda.
Climate change is a real thing, And we could be in danger if we don't act fast.
While it may seem that I am weakening my own position, I will concede that climate change IS a real thing. It undeniable that the climate changes however, The question is how much do we influence it and are we in as much danger as Greta Thunberg thinks we are? I would very much appreciate the studies from my competitor because the studies I've read all rely on predictive climate models and not on actual data of the climate as it is. I hope theirs doesn't. There is also the rather odd trend of every climate prediction being wrong, Consistently from famines to new Ice Ages. https://cei. Org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions I don't know about my competitor but I myself am not a climate scientist but as I understand it, The rising climate temperature from CO2 produced by humans is very insignificant and requires adjusting climate models in order to get the big numbers but again, I'm no expert. https://www. Thegwpf. Com/putting-climate-change-claims-to-the-test/ This is not an argument for allowing the US and China (the biggest contributors of CO2) to not reduce their footprint. While I'm very suspicious of bills the the Green New Deal, I think it's a good thing to try and be more efficient with how we consume energy. What I'm speaking to is simply about the assertion that humans have a significant influence in the global climate, Which to me seems to give ourselves far too much credit, And that our inaction could result in great dangers which again, Relies entirely on the belief that we have any sort of control over the climate. I know people in the UK, Especially people who lived in the 60s, Who point to the horrendous rain and flooding that is rather uncommon in that part of the world as proof of the urgency of global action but we still haven't even established yet whether this is because of us or not. It certainly isn't the UK's fault since they aren't the huge contributors like China and the US. The ball is in your court HockeyPunk to prove that we are enough of an influence in the climate to even do anything to prevent any future disaster.
Human caused climate change is nonsense
Okay, Thank you for your argument. I will just quickly go over what you said in Round 5: >>>Well, It looks like you need everything in triplicate or you don't believe it. You must have been a public servant at some stage. Lol Reply: No, I did not work in Government at any point, For your information. >>>National geographic has a story called - Mummified forest found on treeless Arctic Island by Mason Inman. There, Hopefully you will believe me now that you see the information with your own eyes. Reply: I'm afraid I fail to see how this is relevant to the debate. >>>The emailgate incident involving Michael Mann was published in newspapers and was on T. V. News programs. Correct. >>>video - The in depth story behind a climate fraud. I have watched the video, And much of the information is factually incorrect. The hockey stick has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers, Independently. Source: http://environmentalforest. Blogspot. Com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team. Html I will now provide a list of all my points that Akhenaten has not yet refuted. CO2 warming does not saturate. Source: https://www. Skepticalscience. Com/saturated-co2-effect. Htm Burning of fuel has been proven to release CO2. Source: my analysis of the data at https://ourworldindata. Org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#temperature-increase An increase in CO2 production coincides with the Industrial Revolution. Source: https://ourworldindata. Org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#temperature-increase, With further sources on this page. CO2 has been shown to increase warming. Source: https://www. Skepticalscience. Com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect. Htm, With further sources on that page. Considering that these strong points remain unrebutted by the opposition, It is clear that I have won this debate. Thank you to Akhenaten for the debate, And thank you to the voters for voting for me.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent stated that "First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary" However, my entire case has been in contradiction to the inconvenient truth documentary, as seen when my opponent states "scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth", I have offered scientific in direct contradiction to the scientific evidence in the movie, thus I have negated my opponent's ENTIRE argument. " As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority." Seeing as my opponent likes to spew out the term "fallacy", I will spew out the term band wagon fallacy which this argument is, because The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. My opponent has admitted to doing this by sating that "climate change deniers are within the minority" In my opponent's (rather short) rebuttal he said that I was cherry picking again (in my first argument) He did show that I chose a time fame that best suits me, but that time frame that best suits me shows a DIRECT INDEPENDENCE between oil consumption and CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't cherry picking because I didn't just show a single year or two of independence I showed an entire decade of data. Not only this, but in my 3rd graph (on my first argument) I showed how CO2 levels has been extremely higher than we've ever seen in humanity's history (in some cases over 8000 PPM well before the industrial revolution). Once again I showed independence between ATMOSPHERIC CO2 and Fossil Fuel Consumption. My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 has no direct relationship to fossil fuel consumption, he lists the obvious fact that CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels, but shows no explanation to why an entire decade (and more) of data shows no relation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2, in fact he drops the point in his second argument when he says he cannot explain why this statistic occurred. My opponent's second rebuttal states "My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph." I haven't forgotten any claims that I have made, however my opponent has not shown anything contrary to my original claim, his only counter argument negates his entire argument when my opponent blames the spike in temperature on El Nino, a climate feature unrelated to Global Warming. But again even I admitted there was a slight warming trend since 1978, but if the El Nino spike is removed from the data the trend disappears, so my opponent admits that Global Warming is not the cause of the temperature since 1978. My opponent's third rebuttal states "The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false." However I have shown 3 different examples of a lack of an overall warming trend. My first example being my 1st chart on my first argument, which shows that GLOBALLY the overall warming trend (that there is) is "statistically insignificant" (since 1978). My second example shows that in the US temperatures are cooling over the last decade. My third example shows that in the North and East Atlantic Ocean, as well as, the British Isles have not experienced any warming. My opponent's fourth rebuttal states "The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory." My opponent has offered one singular graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, I have pointed out that there are events on his graph that shows an independence between the two variables, on top of this, I have offered TWICE as much evidence in the contrary, which my opponent has neglected to mention, showing independence between the two variables even over millions of years. Again I'd like to crystalize my arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid My opponent has not other a sufficient refutation for this argument, because this point refutes the definition of Global Warming, it proves that, as we are debating it, Global Warming is not real and thus not a threat. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... My opponent calls this point "cherry picking" however as I have proven, this is not true, and because my opponent has not offered contrary evidence and because of that this point still stands 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory My opponent's first reputation was to say that the ice caps would not melt if Global Warming occurred, however I have shown that this is false, then my opponent made a refutation that is not in contradiction to anything that I stated, so this point still stands. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases My opponent has neglected to mention either of my graphs and my opponent's evidence has been refuted making this point still relevant in this debate. Now I'd like to show why I have won this debate My opponent's arguments have been proven false or a fallacy. My opponent's first "point" is the pope's quote which I've shown to be worth no value to this debate, and I have proven it to be a bandwagon fallacy. My opponent's second point is the Inconvenient Truth Movie which posits scientific evidence for the theory of Global Warming, However, my entire case is in direct contradiction to this movie and acts as counter evidence and a rebuttal to the movie. So, because both of my opponent's arguments have been proven wrong, and my opponent's refutations have been untrue and unfounded, and I have proven them to be so, Thus, I have won this debate... Judges must vote in favor of the Con because of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented and the lack of evidence for my opponent. I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun and enlightening debate.
Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
First off, we need to define "Climate Change". We do this because it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of "Climate Change". For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools. It has been happening since the beginning of the Earth, and Scientists are currently studying it via the geological record in both Ice Cores and in Earth Coring samples. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the "scientific theory" that HUMANS are causing the Climate to Change. Usually blamed on the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels. "Global Warming" as opposed to "Global Cooling" are way too ambiguous of phrases for this discussion and should not be used. I will break this up into 3 separate segments because I see it has 3 features, they are related, but they all play their part : Segment One: Climate Change: Climate Change, as opposed to Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a natural process, and includes both increases and decreases in temperature. According to the Geologic Record, from what we know from the Ice Cores and Sediment Cores, we are currently in a cool period. The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c. The current, short term, average temperature is only about 14c. The maximum estimated temperatures are up around 25c and the Minimum around 10c. The simple conclusion from just those basic facts is we are generally cooler than what is "normal" for our planet. Therefore what we consider "warming" is simply just a "return to normal". Any "hype" about "the end of the world" doesn't even begin to be relevant until we start to clime over 18c, because the Earth was still active and very much alive with temperatures as high as 25c. The Earth also has its own ideas when it comes to warming and CO2. For much of the Earth's history, CO2 level have been much higher (a mean of about 3500 ppm) than they are now, with a high of about 7000 ppm and a low of about 180 ppm. Interestingly, the CDC says the "warning" level for CO2 is 5000 ppm. For Humans, CO2 becomes dangerous (asphyxiation) at 30,000 - 100,000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not clear and we have scientists arguing if increases in CO2 precede warming periods, or if the increase is caused by the warming period. In either case, one thing is clear, even at 7000 ppm, both humans and plants would survive. It is estimated that the Optimal concentration for CO2 for plant growth is between 1500 and 2500 ppm, well below the CDC's limits. The net effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is the increase of biomass (green plant-life) on the planet. More biomass equals more O2. The current measurement of CO2 is about 380 ppm. The current levels of CO2 are about on par with what existed before the 1820s. The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally high, nor are they odd, out of the ordinary, or even dangerous in any way. The opposite is true, however, that the CO2 levels appear to be normalizing and benefiting biomass which is a benefit, not a detriment. We have now established a baseline. The average Temperatures are up around 18c, and the CO2 level around 3500 ppm. This would appear to be "normal" for the Earth, even if it doesn't seem "normal" from our current point of view. Now, I would like to look at some "evidences" of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and real Climate Change: 1) Warming has caused more and more severe hurricanes. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes. http://news.heartland.org... 2) Warming has caused more and more severe wildfires. Fact is, the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned have remained consistent for at least the past 13 years. I have included the graph in the comments section, and this is where I got the information: http://www.nifc.gov... 3) Arctic ice is melting. There was a 29% increase in arctic ice this year. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4) Antarctic ice is melting. Antarctic ice is also increasing, hitting a 35 year high this year. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 5) Polar bears are dying off. Actually, their population is increasing. Based on some estimates, by 4200 bears since 2001. http://www.npr.org... 6) Human generated CO2 has caused an increase in global temperatures. Temperatures have stayed constant over the last 17 years. http://www.forbes.com... 7) Sea Level is increasing rapidly. Over the past 150 years, there has been no drastic, alarming, or abnormal increase in sea level. One site, SkepticalScience, shows a graph from 1880 to now. Sea Levels are about the same now as they were then. It appears, from the graph, that it is cyclical. The following is from an expert in the field: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org... The only conclusion, therefore, is Climate Change is a natural process and does not appear to be abnormally affected by people. Segment Two: Politics: The Politics of Climate Change, like anything in politics, is all about money. First I would like to mention a warning signs of a "political agenda", like "science by consensus". One of the first things we heard from the IPCC and other AGW activists is how "scientists are in consensus" and "all the evidence suggests". Any science minded person knows this isn't true in ANY scientific field. For every scientist FOR something, there is one AGAINST it, and another one who has his own theory. For instance, we have "the big bangers" and the "black holers" when it comes to the origin of our universe... there are those in the scientific community who question gravity... and in climate science, there are all kinds of voices, some for and yes, some against. SCIENCE is not something done by CONSENSUS, but by application of the Scientific Theory. Another warning sign is when any bit of science becomes a political talking point. Politicians are notorious for conflating issues; in the '70s is was "Global Cooling" and today "Global Warming". Neither of which are true; its all just Climate Change. Further evidence of a "political agenda" when it comes to Science is developing and passing legislation to try to alter nature. Just because you pass a law that forbids the sun from rising, doesn't mean the sun won't rise. Second, I must point out "bad science", to go along with the "political agenda": Mistakes: http://www.newscientist.com... (8 other sources in comments) Manipulations: http://www.guardian.co.uk... Lies: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.brutallyhonest.org... Third, after seeing the political agenda, we must ask "who is making money on this?" When Al Gore came up with the idea of "trading carbon credits", financial experts had their hair set on fire. They recognized the beginnings of a ponzi scheme. Carbon trading is a Billion (if not Trillion) dollar scheme. Private individuals and Governments stand to make a fortune. http://www.newsbusters.org... http://www.marketwired.com... Luckily, some are realizing the fraud: http://www.cfact.org... Segment Three: Alternative Theories: Another warning sign is the complete lack of alternate theories to either compliment or detract from the supposed consensus, especially from those sources that HAVE both points of view, like NASA. Below are several links discussing another plausible cause of "Climate Change"; Solar activity: http://www.americanthinker.com... (12 other sources in comments) As you can see, it isn't something to ignore, and it calls into question the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. I have also included some more information from a variety of sources that talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem: http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://www.co2science.org... http://www.nature.com... http://blogs.nature.com... We should also understand that "weather" and "climate" are different things. Weather, for instance, can be influenced by people: http://www.agu.org... http://www.nature.com... http://www.nature.com... You asked for some scientists that don't support AGW, well, here is a partial list of 31,000: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com... NONE of this is to say that I don't believe we should be responsible stewards of our Earthly home. I believe in Recycling, conservation, etc. I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon. NOTE: due to the 10,000 character limit, I have placed many of my links to sources in the comments section.
