Anthropogenic climate change.
Round 3 Rebuttals "Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus
used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why
should be believe them now?" RonPaulConservative Do you have any proof that the general
scientific consensus was that the Earth used to be flat? This is a bare assertion
fallacy without any outside sources, only true because you say it is true. A counter
proposal is that the masses were mesmerized by religious dogma that made them believe
the Earth was flat. ""that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked
out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" "He unleashes his lightning beneath the
whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"
"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the
NIV Bible, Job 28:24)" "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the
sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)" " [0] As you can see the Old Testament clearly
promotes the idea of a flat Earth. The Old Testament is religious doctrine as opposed
to scientific. Meanwhile, early philosophers/scientist proposed and announced the
Earth was spherical in shape. "It has actually been known that the Earth was round
since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed
that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on
the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator
(the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark)
as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar
eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse
was also used as evidence that the Earth was round. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle
declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations
you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator)
and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured
the size of the Earth!" [1] Therefore, scientists have never claimed the Earth was
flat, and instead religious doctrines and leaders have promoted the idea of a flat
Earth. "Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was
going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " RonPaulConservative
Please use spell check. The 70's cooling trend was due to sulfur aerosol forcing.
By the very nature of science a hypothesis can be dis proven and adjusted accordingly,
this flexibility is the greatest strength of science as opposed to unyielding faith
based doctrine. "The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels
and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg - less radiation
reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80's, the trend reversed and radiation
levels at the Earth's surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80's, the cooling
effect from aerosols was masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling
ended, the current global warming trend began." [2] "From the mid-1990s the sub-thermocline
southern Indian Ocean experienced a rapid temperature trend reversal. Here we show,
using climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, that the late twentieth
century sub-thermocline cooling of the southern Indian Ocean was primarily driven
by increasing anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. " [3] As you can see man-made
aerosols caused the cooling trend. "Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease
to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. " RonPaulConservative Many predictions were
wrong, but this is how science works, a scientist makes a prediction, then sees if
it is correct or incorrect and adjusts accordingly. Each prediction becoming more
and more accurate. "None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global
temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following
this pattern. " RonPaulConservative While it is true that there has been cooling and
warming periods in the past, this is a red herring. The rapid rate of Co2 accumulation
and temperature change has been correlated with catastrophic events in the past. [9] There is no evidence
that the warming trend will decrease. You have shown no evidence that a natural event
is causing the current warming trend. "In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are
dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. " RonPaulConservative This seems blatantly false,
global temperatures are rising and have been rising. [4] "Global warming caused by
human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global
temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to
a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." [4] Also,
you choose Newsmax as your source which is about as non-credible as source as you
can get. [5] "NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative
slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly
300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site." [5] "RIGHT BIAS These
media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded
words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or
stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may
damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [6] Newsmax.com
has almost an extreme right bias. "This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. " RonPaulConservative
The Antarctic ice sheets are shrinking. "The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have
decreased in mass." [7] "Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04%
of ouratmosphere is CO2" RonPaulConservative A small amount of Co2 can cause large
increases in temperature due to the amplification effect, also known as postive feedback
cycle. "In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach
by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three
Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range
for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median
value of 7.7." [8] "The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years,
0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative That may not seem a lot to you but .6
degrees Celsius is quite a lot in 120 years. The problem is not the temperature increase
itself, but the rapid rate of change that will shock the Earth's ecosystems. Finally, Co2 levels continue to rise dramatically.
[9] There should be no doubt that I destroyed my opponent's round two argument. Showing
the statements to be blatantly false, red herrings, and/or from bias sources. Sources
0. http://www.answering-christianity.com... 1. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... 2.
https://skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.nature.com... 4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...
5. http://www.sourcewatch.org... 6. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
