Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewThere is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and...
Climate change
It is important that in a debate only the issues and the arguments presented are addressed. Referring to the adversary's school of thought is not a valid way of countering his actual arguments. E. G. in our case I may be better or worse than the "average Co2 advocate" but I must be attacked on the merit on my own arguments not on the merits of the arguments of "advocates". By doing so Con commits the straw-man fallacy (makes it look like his adversary has a weaker argument and then tries to attack the weaker argument) [1] and insinuates that I am not doing my job and only trying to demonstrate that there is global warming. I restate my initial promise and the topic on which we agreed to debate (global warming a) exists – agreed, b) is caused in a significant degree by humans – still debating). I will stick to my promise and I will win this debate by proving what I have promised. The second straw-man fallacy committed by Con is that he suggests that I must prove that all or most of the warming can be explained by Co2 increase. Although this is a clever strategy I will not get sidetracked. As I have already stated in my previous 2 speeches, I assert that global warming is caused in a "significant" degree by Co2. I have also pointed out in my 2nd speech methods that can prove my theory false. I thank Con for taking up some of them. I thank Con for clarifying his position on temperature trends. I can now contradict him without contradicting myself. Con states that temperatures have increased since the last Ice Age and the last Little Ice Age. Con further states that the temperatures have been stable for the past decade. This last statement is false; you can verify it by looking out the window or by looking at satellite temperatures [2]. Con tries to induce guilt by association [3] between GW science and GW show. I will not try to defend Al Gore. Con, however, is trying to defend oil financed science. This is a losing strategy. As I have stated, we are debating arguments. What I have presented is clear bias from the science negating human induced GW. I will further argue that while IPCC tried to link hurricanes to GW and failed, the oil industry tried to silence independent US government financed research [4]. At the end of the day we have finance for human induced GW with no strings attached and finance for negation of GW WITH strings attached form "innocent" oil companies [5] [6] (quoted by Con). It is also weird for oil industry to finance science that negates GW, given the suspicion that this arises. If all that was important was the truth then there would be no need for oil industry to spend billions on financing this research as they would get the same result with no cost. There is no relevance in the composition of the IPCC and no meaning in the use o loaded words like bureaucrats. The works of the IPCC are in fact peer-reviewed [7]. I see that Con has restated his idea that scientific consensus doesn't mean anything. I will now consider this as an argument per se. The first consequence of Con's argument is that he indirectly admits that there is some sort of consensus. It is clear that by counting the number of scientists that agree or dissent with global warming neither Pro, neither Con can win the debate. But they can prove probable Pro or probable Con. Con pointed out that there were times when scientists got it wrong regarding homosexuality or Steady State Theory. While the premise is correct the inference is not. These examples are interesting because nobody counts the successes. It is dull when scientists get it right. You would expect the smart people to be right. Much like in plane crash fear the proportion of false theories created by scientists is exaggerated by the fact that wrong theories are surprising. Furthermore, Con states that what ultimately "won" was science. Winning is final and large consensus would be a good sign of winning. All the factual sane knowledge we have about the world is based upon scientific consensus (not even 100%, there are still scientists that think the Earth is flat). It may be proven wrong but it rarely does. Most of the time new theories incorporate old theories instead of contradicting them (Pythagoras generalized theorem -> Pythagoras theorem). If Con were right even elementary knowledge and communication would be impossible. While consensus doesn't mean 100% certainty, it means high probability. At this level, it would be safer to bet on the vast majority of scientists. I will further prove that their science is correct. Con quoted a part of the proof [8] I presented in my second speech pointing out that there was cooling at the end of the Carboniferous period. However, Con forgot to mention anything about the fact that in the beginning the temperatures were high and that the total amount of Co2 decreased during this period. Con also ignores other phenomena that contributed to cooling [9]. My argument about Co2 concentration and temperature stands. Also the Carboniferous is called that way because of the fact that coal was formed during that period [9]. Most of the Co2 in the atmosphere then was transformed into wood and than into coal. We are now just putting it back into the atmosphere. There is actually more coal than limestone formed by skeletons of sea creatures. Con is also wrong that Co2 is gradually decreasing since the last 600 million years as I have shown in my first 2 speeches. In my first argument I presented the super-greenhouse effect on Venus. Con decided to attack this example in his 2nd speech. His firs calculation is correct: Venus should receive 2 times the sunlight earth receives. The rest of the demonstration is wrong. First Con is trying to demonstrate that there is no GW on Earth, but in his calculation he uses this conclusion as an hypothesis. He states that if temperatures on Earth are 288 k and Venus temperatures 737 the greenhouse effect on Venus would be 737-2*288 = 161 (Con supposes that the mean temperature on Earth has no Greenhouse Effect). In fact the temperature of Earth with no Greenhouse Effect would be 255 K [10]. Then the temperature on Venus would be 510 K with no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect would be in fact 227 K. Con now states that the Co2 effect is linear. In his first speech he stated: "a little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically". So the relationship is not in fact linear. If Venus has a 227 K temperature increase because of greenhouse effect then on Earth a small increase in the initial concentration of Co2 would lead to severe initial increases according to Con's model. For a more clear explanation of the process see graph [11]. In fact Venus is even hotter than Mercury [12] which is closer to the Sun. The Moon also proves the greenhouse theory and it is at the same distance as earth [13] and is on average colder. I have proven the bias of the science that negates GW, gave explanations about the Carboniferous and the Co2 output, have shown how Con's calculation actually proves my theory true. Te motion stands. [1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [4] http://www.nytimes.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.sciencemag.org... [8] http://www.geocraft.com... [9] http://www.palaeos.com... [10] http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://img404.imageshack.us... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://www.teachersdomain.org...
