PRO

  • PRO

    The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this...

    That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

    Main point - Every major science academy in the west supports it, 97%-98% of scientist support it. 1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1"F to 1.4"F warming over the 20th century. 2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. 3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth's forests, oceans, and other "carbon sinks" cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2. The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere. 4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. 5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty. 6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop , allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. 7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change. 8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world's oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use. 9. An 8" rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a "significant acceleration" of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models. 10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth's hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced. 11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a "strong increase" in the rate of glacial retreat. From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent). 12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun's energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953"2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15] 13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 "climate change denial front groups."

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/That-Humans-Are-Causing-Climate-Change/1/
  • PRO

    They are both major problems plaguing the world, And must...

    Climate Change Exists

    Climate change and global warming both exist from a fundamental basis. They are both major problems plaguing the world, And must be solved. In order for humans to survive this era, These issues must be addressed and climate change deniers must realize that they do need to act. One shouldn't even have to argue for or against this topic. It has been proven by hundreds upon hundreds of scientists that greenhouse gases and carbon emissions from humans are negatively affecting the environment.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Exists/4/
  • PRO

    First, the science is settled, this is a political debate...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    Round two arguments. First, the science is settled, this is a political debate that deniers try to make look like a scientific debate. Fact: There is a 97% consensus on First, the science is settled, this is a political debate that deniers try to make look like a scientific debate. Fact: There is a 97% consensus on climate change. Climate scientists are the experts of experts in their field. A consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity exist. Myth: 31,000 scientists signed a petition so therefore there is no consensus. Fallacy: Fake experts, as the expertise increases so does agreement. Co2 is at the highest it has been in over 800,000 years. Tempatures are rising. Glaciers are overall losing mass. Humans fingerprints show humans are extremely likely to be causing these events. Burning of fossil fuels and the released Co2 is the main driver of climate change. Thank you.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./4/
  • PRO

    Climate Change is happening right now because we know...

    Climate Change is happening - NOW

    Climate Change is happening right now because we know that temperatures globally have risen by around 1degree since 1900. https://climate. Nasa. Gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-happening-NOW/1/
  • PRO

    2] Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or...

    Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

    Due to many problems posting arguments for the last debate, Citrakayah and I have decided to restart the debate in order to iron out the structural problems of this debate and because the computer deleted my argument. I extend my opponent the best of luck. Full Resolution Climate change is not an imminent danger to the general wellbeing of this planet. I will be arguing for this resolution. BoP is shared. Definitions Climate Change: "...a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years."[1] Imminent: "Liable to happen soon; impending ."[2] Danger: "The state of being vulnerable to injury or loss; risk."[3] Basically, the resolution is that climate change will not significantly damage the earth in the next century or two. Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
  • PRO

    He resigned because he considers that climate change...

    Climate change

    I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc.) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc.) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc.). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] http://www.nytimes.com... [3] http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] http://www.newsweek.com... [5] http://www.geocraft.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    Climate change is real.

    Climate change is real.

    Climate change is real.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • PRO

    R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    R4 Defense "Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. " Chang29 My opponent mistakes scientists skeptical and conservative perspective as doubt. Can science 100% proven man-made climate change? No, but neither can scientists 100% proven humans or reality exists. [10] Scientists work in probability. The best science can offer is that humans and reality probably exist. Just as man-made climate change probably exists. Humans desire there is a 100% chance of x happening and a 0% chance of y happening. Yet, as humans we don't have the luxury of omniscience. We cannot afford the risk of waiting for more accurate methods and technology. Given the available evidence there is about a 97% chance that man-made climate change exists, is killing people, and will continue to kill people. Now we can act upon the 97% chance, a huge risk, or act upon the 3% chance, a small risk. Then, depending upon whether climate change is correct or not four possibilities emerge. A. If we act upon the 97% chance and then later find out we were wrong, that aliens or some other extremely unlikely scenario was causing climate change, we can feel confident that we took the best course of action given our current knowledge. Little criticism is likely. B. We act upon the 97% chance and are correct in our assessments. We will be correct and know we performed the correct course of action. C. We act on the 3% chance and are incorrect, then we will be receive harsh criticism for not acting upon the best available data. D. 3% option, and we are correct. Everyone will be happy, but confused. For years to come people will question, how did you know that climate change wasn't real? Did you have a psychic ball? This is the most idealistic scenario and most unlikely. As for my opponent's accusation of an appeal to emotion fallacy, this seems like an extremely probable scenario and thus is logical. I contend that the author of the peer reviewed article was logically coherent when arguing that are grandchildren would blame us for inaction. "Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. " [11] My opponent makes a strange analogy between plastic blankets and greenhouse gases. First I've already explained that Venus has a higher concentration of Co2 and is warmer. Second, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy, using the owner of a greenhouse as the authority figure. My opponent never adequately explains why a second sheet of plastic wouldn't make the green house warmer for longer. In fact, an insulation effect would most likely cause the greenhouse to become warmer for longer. Think wearing multiple sweaters in winter. More insulation in a house makes the house stay warmer for longer. As for a scientific consensus equaling religion, my opponent's argument seems to misunderstand what a scientific consensus is. "So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer." [12] In summary, the weight of evidence for science change is so overwhelming that scientists are no longer arguing and thus at a consensus. I thank my opponent for a difficult and respectful debate. Sources 10. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com... 11. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 12. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./1/
  • PRO

    I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe...

    Climate change is real.

    I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe in climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • PRO

    There is nobody more qualified then this group of people....

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    Round two arguments Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is the main driver. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. IV. Other supporting evidence V. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Claim: A scientific consensus exists for anthropogenic climate change existence. Warrant: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." [0] Impact: A scientific consensus is an agreement upon experts in the field. Think of one hundred heart surgeons agreeing upon a heart surgery technique. Heart surgeons would have more credibility than brain surgeons, dentists, and dermatologist. Even though all four are doctors, only the heart surgeons are most qualified on the subject of heart surgery. The same is true for climate scientists. A geologist, a physicist, and a biologist are all scientists. Yet, only climate scientists are the top notch for qualifications. These are the experts of experts in the field of climate science. There is nobody more qualified then this group of people. The fact that they came to a consensus based upon multiple lines of empirical evidence, used social calibration to determine what qualified as evidence, and social diversity, from many different parts of the world gives an enormous impact. The reason why social diversity is important is to avoid groupthink which can taint the consensus. "What Is Groupthink? Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus. " [1] Here is the peer reviewed sources that confirm the scientific consensus. "J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.” W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." [0] II. Co2 is the main driver. Claim: Co2 matter because the gas absorbs infrared radiation. Warrant:"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating." [2] Impact: Co2 absorbing infrared radiation plays a crucial part in the greenhouse gas rising of Earth's temperature. Claim: Co2 makes up 81% of the greenhouse gases. Warrant: [3] Pie graph should display here. Impact: This shows that Co2 is the main driver of climate change. III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural. Claim: We know the Co2 is from humans due to human finger prints. Warrant: [4] Impact: These show that the Co2 is human caused as opposed to natural. IV. Other supporting evidence There is other supporting evidence, the over 400 ppm of Co2, sea level rise, global temperature rise which is now at 1.7 degree Fahrenheit, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, and many more. These all reinforce that anthropogenic climate change is happening. [5] V. Sources 0. http://climate.nasa.gov... 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. https://scied.ucar.edu... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./2/

CON

  • CON

    2010 and Carlton et al. ... Do you have any other...

    Climate change is a fraud

    I still can't tell if you are claiming that the climate is not changing at all or if you believe it is changing but for natural reasons rather than anthropogenic. Could you please clarify this in your next argument so I know what I am arguing against going forward? Now, To your arguments: 1. The 97% number may not be exactly on-the-nose, But it is around that. The study by Cook et al. (2013) which is commonly cited as the source of this number examined thousands of scientific studies on climate change and found that 97% of papers which declared a stance on the question of whether humans contribute to climate change took the side that we do. Later analysis by Cook and his colleagues of his study and others determined the consensus was probably between 90 and 100%, According to Forbes. Critics, Like the one in the video you referred to, Have attacked Cook for excluding studies which did not explicitly endorse anthropogenic climate change, Saying they should be counted as "uncertain" or rejecting the idea. However, Another study hilariously applied this logic to hundreds of recent geology papers and found that 0% explicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, Which there is a scientific consensus on. That's because you don't have to declare that you support a theory, Like climate change, When it is no longer in doubt. Other studies besides Cook's which found similar results include Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010 and Carlton et al. 2015. 2. The mass of humans vs. The mass of Earth does not mean we cannot effect the Earth. We humans have made enough nuclear weapons to kill every living organism on Earth depsite our mass being less than that of the world's termites. What matters, In this context, Is the physical properties of greenhouse gases. Gases like carbon dioxide, Methane and water vapor are penetrable to shortwave radiation (visible light from the sun) but not to longwave radiation (thermal energy; heat). This is not a property which can be faked, Or else it would easily be found out by independent investigation. So when sunlight converts to longwave radiation, The heat gets trapped by the greenhouse effect. 3. Atmospheric CO2 has no true saturation point; people who claim this based on data have usually misapplied a linear scale to CO2 concentration. The severity of CO2's greenhouse effect scales logarithmically, And if concentration is scaled by logarithm, A constant increase in the greenhouse effect is apparent, As in this graph: http://gallery. Myff. Org/gallery/171547/modtran-rad-bal. GIF 4. The corruption of a single public figure does not negate the science. Maurice Strong was an oil tycoon, Not a scientist. Anthropogenic climate change was actually discovered by environmental scientists working for Exxon in the 1970s and 80s, But just like now, The oil companies didn't want to give up their ticket to riches, So instead of switching their focus away from fossil fuels and toward renewables, They started a massive denialism campaign to convince people that climate change was not anthropogenic. The science, However, Says otherwise. Here is just a sampling of studies which support the notion of anthropogenic climate change: Karl and Trenberth 2003 Allen et al. 2006 Cayan et al. 2010 Barnett et al. 1999 Berliner, Levine and Shea 2000 (links removed because it was not letting me post with them in) 5. Tree rings are not the only proxy used to estimate historic and prehistoric climate trends--dating back even farther are the proxies of isotopic ratios in ice core samples and mineral/rock composition of particular strata--but when used, They are very effective. The trunk of a tree is actually made of secondary xylem, A type of vascular tissue which conducts water. Temperature and precipitation can both effect the width of the xylem tubes, Called tracheids, And how densely packed they are. A seasoned naturalist can identify these differences in samples bored from living trees. By observing patterns in xylem from recent years, When temperature and precipitation were measured precisely by human instruments, One can reach a point where one can correctly describe the known weather conditions from an area for a given year just by looking at a sample from a tree. So none of the things you listed so far have debunked anthropogenic climate change or climate change in general. Do you have any other arguments you would like to put forth?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-a-fraud/1/
  • CON

    Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole...

    Climate Change is a real issue

    I propose that climate change is a fraud and that the people who support it are all frauds and charlatans. The science of human-caused climate change is faulty and full of misconceptions and bad science. 1. Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. 6. Climate Change is the biggest hoax and sham made by Obama and his crew of liberal loving communist democrats. If you allow them to take money from our paychecks into a plan that doesn't a solution because the problem does not exist, You are giving the democrats power to the Chinese for a global communist take over. To submit to the new world order. Stand your ground. Text fraud 88022. Text vote to 88022. Joe Biden will carry out what Obama couldn't finish. Don't let him There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/2/
  • CON

    If you answered the latter, you're among a quarter of...

    Jail climate change deniers.

    The problem with your argument is humans have been wrong with a lot of ideas. I find most of your argument fits under the ad populum fallacy. [2] Just because the majority of scientists think man made climate change is real and a threat, does not mean the scientists are correct. At one time we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. " "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?" If you answered the latter, you're among a quarter of Americans who also got it wrong, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation. " [3] There is a chance that the entire global warming/climate change is a scam. That the deniers are whistle blowers. If we start jailing whistle blowers we could be in a lot of trouble. [4] Remember that 97% of climate change scientists agree. That means 3% don't, those 3% could be legitimate whistle blowers. Some of the scientist claim there is bullying going on to reach the consensuses. [5] There is talk of data manipulation. [6] Honestly, I will not stoop by backing up the deniers. I think the chances of the deniers being wrong is at least 99%. Nevertheless, there is that 1% chance. More importantly, it sets a precedence as seen in r1. Finally, and perhaps my strongest argument. Assume for a second that the deniers are wrong. Not much of an assumption. Jailing the deniers could backfire. Causing them to become martyrs per say. Holding back political change and giving the deniers a louder voice.Thanks for debating and being respectful. I am not a climate change denier, I just feel both sides of the debate need to be represented. Sources 2. http://www.skepdic.com... 3. http://abcnews.go.com... 4. https://www.gov.uk... 5. 6. http://www.forbes.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Jail-climate-change-deniers./1/
  • CON

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
  • CON

    Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.

    Climate Change is the end of the world

    Acting to 'mitigate' climate change will cost a fortune.

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/200-climate-change-is-the-end-of-the-world/
  • CON

    If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product...

    Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

    "A belief in human-caused Climate Change requires one to assert that humans are foreign entities" No, Humans can cause climate change because we introduce new variables into the climate. "If we agree that humans are a naturally occurring product of the Earth, It means the Earth is causing Climate Change since the Earth is a prerequisite to humanity" Humans created things like plastic and chemicals which put a hole in the ozone layer. This wouldn't have happened without humans. Therefore, Humans have cause climate change. Whether or not we're a natural product from the Earth has no bearing on this. "If you argue that humans are the Cause of Climate Change, You have to hold the belief that humans are an unnatural, Foreign, And parasitic force in the Universe" Explain how, Don't just assert. For example, If I murdered you and your whole family - you'd have to say the Earth did it unless I'm somehow a foreign entity of the Earth and universe itself? "If we are a natural result of Earthly evolution, Our presence here (including our intelligence and ability to develop technology) is a result of that natural process, No different than those of plants and other animals. " Yes, And no one says the Earth took carbon and then spat out oxygen into the atmosphere. We say PLANTS which evolved started taking in carbon and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Your stance is you just trying to find some loophole that doesn't even exist in order to be able to say humans aren't actually causing climate change. Moreover, Even if your argument was valid, It wouldn't invalidate that humans are causing climate change. Your premise and assertions aren't even matching up.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-Caused-Climate-Change-is-Impossible/1/
  • CON

    Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are...

    Climate change is real.

    Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are simulations, including climate change. Bless.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • CON

    Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate...

    Climate change is real.

    Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate change cannot exist.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • CON

    Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when...

    Anthropogenic global climate change.

    "There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority. 'The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' [1]" - Stupidape As I had stated in my Round 3 argument, those consensuses are unreliable as they focus on a small amount of climate scientists and not all of the climate scientists as it is claimed. So you can't say 97% of climate scientists agree because 97% of people in a consensus believe in anthropogenic climate change. "The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle. 'The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.' [13]"- Stupidape The lag isn't a misunderstanding; it's evident. If you look at the graph, you can clearly see the lag of CO2 behind temperature [1]. And there have been times where CO2 and temperature went in opposite directions, which contradicts the theory of CO2 affecting temperature. "'Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.' [14]" - Stupidape If you look at the emails in full context, you can see that the scientists manipulated data to prove their research, and knew that global warming wasn't man made [2]. "The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."- Stupidape Actually, according to the website you sourced, National Review has a high rating of factual reporting [3] . "Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news." And it's also hippocritical of you to call me out on bias sources, as your arguments are chock FULL of them. Greenpeace, one of your sources, was categgorized under "Conspiracy-Psudoscience", which is for sources that "publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media." [4], noting on Greenpeace that it is a "Left wing environmental activist group. Strays from science on a few issues, otherwise not too bad." Next is Thinkprogress, which has a large liberal bias. Here's what the media fact checking website said about them: "ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Has a left wing bias in story selection and has failed some fact checks including these from Snopes."[5]. Here you are critisizing me for using a source with a right wing bias, yet you're using a source that actually FAILED factchecks. And finally, there's skeptical science. A website started by and managed by scientist John Cook, famous for, as I pointed out, manipulated information to push his political agenda. "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."[6]. As for my argument about Mars, we know enough to say that it isn't the CO2 levels. So with that in mind, and the fact that it is the closest planet to Earth, it throws the argument of man made climate change into question, for if CO2 doesn't raise Mars' temperature, then it can't raise Earth's. Nice debating you. Sources [1]- http://joannenova.com.au... [2]- http://pastebin.com... [3]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [4]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [5]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [6]-https://wattsupwiththat.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-global-climate-change./1/
  • CON

    If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4%...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    What a disappointing debate. The instigator did not provide one thoughtful argument that mankind is causing climate change, only a source that sates 97% of government funded scientists want more funding to study the issue of CO2 causing climate change. Since, scientists just don't know what the cause it requires more study. Yet, alarmist activists want every human on the planet to reduce their living standards based on possible impacts. While, the respondent to this debate provided a simple common sense discussion about the small amounts of CO2 mankind produces compared with nature. Man's less than 4% annual contributions to CO2 emissions would be considered a measurement error in a science lab. If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4% difference between results it would be considered a success. Yet, alarmists are using this tiny amount as the basis of their argument. In any other context this would be laughed at. Most people that live in cities look around only noticing the tiny part of the planet that men have modified for their comfort. With mankind's continued fight against nature, it would take back the urban areas very quickly. Nature is a robust and complex system. The planet Earth has taken a beating in the past and will in the future. Life will survive, as well as mankind. For a person to state that nature can not handle a 4% increase of CO2 in a complex system is simply naive. The instigators responses were at best weak. The accusation of a cherry picking fallacy is fallacious at best. The total CO2 emissions were included to demonstrate the extremely small amount that mankind was responsible for. Thus, bring in nature's capacity to absorb large amounts of CO2 was not necessary. A 4% error in nature's absorbing capacity and all of mankind's CO2 has be removed from the system. Looking at the IPCC's numbers nature absorbs more than it produces. Using the alarmist's logic, if mankind was not producing excess CO2 the earth would be on the verge of global cooling. There is very few alarmist out there that would be calling for mankind to increase CO2 emissions in this case. Anthropogenic climate change on Venus is a tough sell but I'm sure welfare scientists have requests for funding in at this time. Mankind does not understand planet Earth, and have a geographic advantage. Any attempt at understand Venus' climate is a pretense of knowledge. It could be there is a lot of CO2 due to heat, instead of the opposite. In total, the con side of this debate has provided the best arguments against anthropogenic climate change, by simply pointing out the small amounts of CO2 emitted by mankind

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./1/