PRO

  • PRO

    The cutting down of trees will also have the same effect....

    Global Warming: Climate Change

    We should take action on climate change now because it is predicted that the climate will increase by 4-6 degrees by 2100. Right now the climate is increased by 1 degree Celsius warmer since 1880. In the past extreme heat and drought has caused thousands of deaths. For example in Chicago 1995, 795 people died in a heat wave and in Europe 2003, 30,000 people died from another heat wave. In Northwest China desertification of farming lands causes a loss of 1000 miles annually. The Amazon forests play an important role in absorbing CO2 to regulate its amount in the atmosphere. The trees in the Amazon forest had begun to die due to droughts, this will cause in more carbon being emitted to the atmosphere. The cutting down of trees will also have the same effect. Because decaying trees do not only absorb carbon, but they also emit it as they die. Carbon pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is also another leading factor to as why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-Climate-Change/2/
  • PRO

    The peer review system is not fair, Democratic,...

    Climate change is a fraud

    Quote - You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. Reply - The term 'greenhouse gas' is misleading. The Earth doesn't act like a greenhouse but is more like a thermostat. Thus, The whole climate disaster scenario is based on many false assumptions. Quote - The claim that every climate scientist is corrupt is so sweeping as to be completely unfounded. There are thousands of climate scientists all over the world; you can't expect every one of them to be bankrolled by special interests or be lying about their science to the public. You might, However, Expect a small minority to be corrupt, Which is what we see in the few who claim anthropogenic climate change is not happening, Who are often funded by fossil fuels or not scientists qualified in the fields they are discussing. Some things you need to know about the science world. 1. The science profession is a very frivolous profession and it is one that the community doesn't need most of the time. The science community has to find ways to make themselves more important and necessary to the community. Thus, They make up artificial disasters from which they can save us poor fools. By creating artificial disasters, Like climate change and Corona Virus attacks, The science community can increase it's social standing and importance. 2. The science community is a kind of mafia organisation which uses bribery, Extortion, Fraud, Blackmail, And deception as it's main tools of trade. 3. The science community is not accountable to anybody because they are a kind of dictatorship which took control of all the global leaders a long time ago and have maintained control ever since. 4. The peer review system is not fair, Democratic, Responsible, Careful and has no sense of morality. The peer review system has been secretly tested many times and it has been found that 90 % of errors are never found. Thus, The peer review system is just a corrupt and bureaucratic waste of time and money. Quote - My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Reply - You have just repeated the same statement as last time. You can't just say that "this is not the case". You must prove that it is not the case using logic and examples. Note - To win this point you must prove that nuclear explosions have caused the climate to change. If you don't have any evidence of this, Then you shouldn't have stated it. Quote - Given that over a million people have died of the corona virus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. Reply - It is only assumed that a million people have died due to the Corona Virus. I haven't seen any evidence to prove that this is the case. If you study the number of deaths from disease in general, You will find that no more people have died from disease this year than what have died from disease last year. Thus, It is just a numbers game and a game of changing disease names to suit the hidden agendas. Note - Have you once heard on the media anything about mortality rates this year verses mortality rates last year? Answer - No you haven't because they don't want you to know that nothing has changed in relation to mortality rates. Note - Decreasing mortality rates is the only thing that can tell you if there is a pandemic or isn't there a pandemic. Quote - The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. Reply - In order to determine if humans are to blame for climate change we have to imagine a world without a sun first. This is just a typical logic exercise and method of determining the cause of something. You take away the possible causative agents one by one and see what happens. Obviously, Humans would not be able to add one or two degrees to the Earth's temperature in this case. Thus, We can safely eliminate humans as being the cause of global warming. Quote - Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. Reply - I can see that you have a sever case of confirmation bias. Sorry, Water vapour cools the Earth, It doesn't warm it. Just image yourself on a blisteringly hot summers day and some big dark clouds come over. Does the temperature (a) Get hotter when the clouds are overhead or (b) Does it get cooler when the big dark clouds come overhead?

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

    I believe that Climate Change is a hoax created by Elon...

    Climate Change is a Hoax

    I believe that Climate Change is a hoax created by Elon Musk to steal our money to buy "Eco-Friendly" products which actually cost on average 87% MORE than before. Additionally, the world has actually been getting a few degrees COOLER over the past few years. We need some of that "Global Warming" everyone has been whining about!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-Hoax/1/
  • PRO

    The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes...

    Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

    My opponent throws around a bunch of irrelevant facts to try to disprove highly credible and peer reviewed articles. At this point, responding to my opponent's arguments directly would only give the impression that they were worth responding to. I added a few more peer reviewed articles to back up my points. I use peer reviewed to prove that anthropic climate change is real and a threat. When two sides of the debate conflict on facts, the winner goes to the side who uses the more credible sources. My opponent uses blogs and other sources with notorious reputations. Then, my opponent proceeds to engage in conjecture that these red herrings somehow impact the resolution. At the very least voters, give me the more credible sources points. The below quote, although lengthy explains that man-made climate change isn't something far in the future, its an event that has occurred already and is continuing to occur and claim human lives. I have overwhelmingly met my burden of proof. Thanks for the debate. ""Unusually high temperatures, as well as socioeconomic vulnerability, along with social attenuation of hazards, in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke. In addition to age and gender, combinatorial factors included preexisting disease, medication, urban residence, isolation, poverty, and, probably, air pollution. Although diversely impacted or reported, many parts of Europe suffered human and other losses, such as farming and forestry through drought and fires. Summer 2003 was the hottest in Europe since 1500, very likely due in part to anthropogenic climate change."" [5] Sources 4. http://dx.doi.org... 5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 6. http://science.sciencemag.org... 7. http://iopscience.iop.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropic-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./1/
  • PRO

    You have done neither of these basic things so far. ......

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    In order to win a debate, You have to, Either show evidence or use logic to convince the voters that you are correct and that your opponent is wrong. You have done neither of these basic things so far. There is simply not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any dramatic climate change. The Earth's climate has changed in the past but this was due to volcanic activity. Volcanoes can expel a thousand times more CO2 than what humans can achieve. A volcano expels other sulphur based gases which cause a shielding effect in the upper atmosphere. This is what happened during the Dark Ages when sunlight was reduced and a mini ice age occurred. Humans are like microscopic organisms on the surface of the Earth. Our combined mass is insufficient to be able the affect the huge mass of the Earth. This is just a matter of understanding basic heat transfer science in relation to two objects of dissimilar size and mass. I have pointed out already that the properties of CO2 are similar to glass and increasing the amount of CO2 doesn't correlate with a subsequent rise in temperature. But you have just dismissed this statement without offering any counter argument. You have done the same with my thermostat analogy of You have done neither of these basic things so far. There is simply not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any dramatic climate change. The Earth's climate has changed in the past but this was due to volcanic activity. Volcanoes can expel a thousand times more CO2 than what humans can achieve. A volcano expels other sulphur based gases which cause a shielding effect in the upper atmosphere. This is what happened during the Dark Ages when sunlight was reduced and a mini ice age occurred. Humans are like microscopic organisms on the surface of the Earth. Our combined mass is insufficient to be able the affect the huge mass of the Earth. This is just a matter of understanding basic heat transfer science in relation to two objects of dissimilar size and mass. I have pointed out already that the properties of CO2 are similar to glass and increasing the amount of CO2 doesn't correlate with a subsequent rise in temperature. But you have just dismissed this statement without offering any counter argument. You have done the same with my thermostat analogy of climate. You have just dismissed it and not offered any counter argument. When you are debating, You can't just keep discrediting information without offering a logical reason or evidence to disprove the other person's theory or evidence. Quote - The Earth's temperature system is a closed system in the sense that it does not interact with any other systems. Reply - This statement doesn't make any sense. The Earth does interact with other systems. The sun, Moon and planets all have an impact and effect on the Earth's climate. The sun is the most important climate maker. In fact, Without the sun, The Earth's temperature would be about 3 degrees off absolute zero. Thus, The sun is the only thing that keeps us humans alive and breathing. Without the sun, We would all freeze to death in a matter of days. Note - The IPCC doesn't recognize the existence of the sun. I have looked through hundreds of pages of IPCC climate reports and can't find any mention of the sun. This is how stupid this organisation is. They can't see the bleeding obvious. False data. In the beginning, There were two climate researchers - Keith Briffa and Michael Mann. They both had conflicting data about tree ring data concerning climate. The IPCC decided to appoint Michael Mann as the chief researcher because his data more suited their agenda of dramatic climate change. Note - Organisations like the IPCC need reasons to exist so they are constantly trying to find justifications for their existence and ongoing viability. Thus, By choosing Michael Mann as the chief researcher they ignored and deleted all of Keith Briffa's data which contradicted Mann's climate data. Thus, We have the introduction of the dramatic hockey stick graph which shows a huge upswing in global temperature which has been assessed through the dubious use of tree ring data. Then there was the intercepted email from Michael Mann which used the words "hide the the trick" included in the message. Note - The 'trick' was the inversion of the graph which showed a decline in temperature. Note - Modern analysis of tree ring data using present day tree growth doesn't indicate any temperature differential. Thus, Tree ring growth may only indicate the amount of moisture available to the tree and not indicate temperature. This updated information was ignored by the IPCC because it didn't suit their agenda of finding a man-made catastrophe. Note - Recent research has found that the Arctic had forest growth as recent as 1000 years ago during the Roman Empire warming period. Thus, This information is deleted and hidden from the public by the IPCC criminals. Thus, We can plainly see that climate change scientists are all riding the gravy train of climate change hysteria and getting piles of cash from the government to do more and more useless research into climate change.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Human-caused-climate-change-is-nonsense/1/
  • PRO

    The debate structure will be as so: - Round1: Acceptance...

    Climate Change Exists

    This will be a quick debate on whether or not (man-made) Climate Change exists. The debate structure will be as so: - Round1: Acceptance - Round 2: Main arguments - Round 3: Rebuttals This means you can not reply to any claims during round 2 or provide any additional arguments in round 3 that are not in reply to the arguments presented in round 2. Try to keep the debate civil and have fun. :) (NOTE: Do not accept if you are unsure that you can commit to the debate.)

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

    They have an R-squared correlation of 0.83, which is...

    Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

    I would like to thank Citrakayah for accepting this debate. I. Natural Factors Point to Little or No Change In The Climate I.A. The Sun The sun is the main driver of the global climate. The level of activity from the sun correlates with the average global temperature. The sun is currently decreasing in activity, meaning that the warming of the 1970s-1990s will soon be erased. "Changes in the Sun can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming."[1] The sun can account for most of the warming experienced over the past century, and correlates well with the rising and falling of temperatures when compared to 20th century temperatures: [2] I.A.1. Solar Flux Predictions Solar activity has been declining for a little over a decade and will continue to do so for at least the foreseeable future. "'Normally, the conveyor belt moves about 1 meter per second—walking pace,' says Hathaway, 'That's how it has been since the late 19th century.' In recent years, however, the belt has decelerated to 0.75 m/s in the north and 0.35 m/s in the south. 'We've never seen speeds so low.'"[19] This means that solar activity has been declining recently. The next solar cycle, number 25, is projected to be one of the lowest in centuries.[19] "Storms from the sun are expected to build to a peak in 2013 or so, but after that, the long-range indicators are pointing to an extended period of low activity — or even hibernation."[3] In fact, we are already beginning to experience this lowered solar activity.[5][6] This graph illustrates the recent decline in solar activity. Note the downward trend in solar activity overtime: [4] With solar activity leveling off, temperatures will go back down to normal. In addition, there will be fewer hazardous rays coming from the sun and fewer solar storms, meaning fewer disruptions to the satellite systems we rely on so heavily. I.A.2. Cosmic Ray Flux With decreased solar activity, there is increased cosmic ray penetration of the Earth's atmosphere. Cosmic rays are inversely proportional to solar activity and proportional to cloud cover; and greater cloud cover means cooler temperatures.[19][10][11] I.A.3. Ocean Currents Ocean currents are the main internal drivers of the global climate. They have an R-squared correlation of 0.83, which is pretty significant (the highest score is 1).[7] Here is a chart showing ocean current's correlation to temperatures: [7] The sun is the main driver of ocean current temperatures, "This [solar activity] is the single most important cause [of ocean currents and their temperatures]. The Sun provides the bulk of the energy which drives the circulation of water in the oceans, either directly or indirectly (through winds). The uneven distribution of solar energy across the globe (highest at the equator, decreasing towards the poles) produces an uneven heating of water in the ocean."[20] When plotted together, solar activity and ocean current activity correlate well (notice the decline in solar activity after WWII, and the subsequent fall in ocean current activity around the same time).[2][7][8] Ocean currents, because of the sun's cooling and because of its natural three-decade cycles of warm and cool, ocean currents are projected to cool down further than today and to continue that pattern for at least another few decades. "Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so."[9] Here is a graph showing ocean current's temperatures since 1900: [8] Note how all three currents are experiencing decreasing temperature trends, which, due to their current short duration, should continue for at least two more decades, and then another few decades to get back (possibly) to a peak. With decreased solar activity causing lower ocean current temperatures, the Earth will cool somewhat over at least the next few decades, albeit it shouldn't be that much. The climate will stay around normal. I.B. The 1500-Year Cycle There exists a 1500-year climatic cycle of peak-trough-peak (or vice versa) temperature cycles. "Through at least the last million years, a moderate 1500-year warm-cold cycle has been superimposed over the longer, stronger Ice Ages and warm interglacials."[12] Here is an illustration of this cycle: [13] This warm trend is projected to continue for around a few more centuries, and then the cycle will flip into a cold pattern.[12] This warm period will help counterbalance some of the effects of a diminishing sun. As solar activity does its ups and downs, the counterbalance between the Earth and the Sun will help keep Earth's climate systems in check. The various natural factors contributed by solar activity and the Earth's 1500-year cycle point to an insignificant change in the Earth's climate. Temperatures should not be much higher or lower than they usually are on average over the next few centuries. While the sun is cooling, the Earth will continue to heat the planet somewhat until solar activity returns and we have another temperature rise. It's a rise-and-fall situation. II. Positive Effects of the Current Interglacial and Warm Period A moderately warm period is better than a cold period. If the temperature is not too warm, a warm climate can have positive effects on both the Earth as a whole and on everyone. II.A. Health Effects In moderation, warm temperatures are better for the body than cold temperatures. People cannot get enough heat, infections are rampant, and hospital admissions will rise in the cold. From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves [coincidentally when the Earth was heating up].[14][12] In Germany, heat waves were found to reduce overall mortality rates slightly, while cold spells led to a significant increase in deaths.[15][12] In addition, warmer weather decreases incidences of strokes, respiratory diseases, and the flu.[12] In general, life expectancies are higher in warmer climates, and there are fewer incidences of disease and other health problems. A warm period would be beneficial to human health. II.B. Economic Benefits Some of the major industrial sectors, particularly agriculture, tend to work better in a warmer environment than they do in a cooler environment. "The book [The Impact of Climate Change] finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors."[16][17] CO2 increases, a byproduct of temperature increases ([12]), naturally help to stimulate plant growth as well, further helping agriculture. "For a 300 ppm increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration above the planet's current base level of slightly less than 400 ppm, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous plants rises by something on the order of 30%, while the productivity of its woody plants rises by something on the order of 50%."[18][21] This further helps humans by increasing food yields, lowering rates of starvation and hunger. Conclusion There should be an insignificant change in the climate over the next couple of centuries as the sun continues its cycles and the Earth is in a moderately warm period. In the short term, the major factors in the climate show a decrease in temperature, but the long term shows a stabilization of temperatures to a reasonably warm level. This increases humans' life expectancies and increases crop yields, reducing the incidence of hunger, thereby further aiding in the increases in life expectancies. There is no rational reason to worry about the climate going off the deep end in the near future. On the contrary, our current climatic state seems to be helping us. Sources http://tny.cz...

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

    This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas...

    Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

    My opponent claims that the "climate competitors" of CO2 account for an unknown portion of temperature anomaly. We actually have a comprehensive understanding of both chemical and physical factors of climate change. He is correct that if we compared a chart of barbecue emissions with a chart of atmospheric heating, it would be absurd to assume barbecuing causes global warming. However, if we measured the effects of shortwave radiation, longwave radiation, the manner in which each passes through clouds, the effects of vegetation, the net greenhouse effects of the oceans, and emissions of non-barbecuing greenhouse gases, we would be in a much better position to say whether barbecue emissions cause global warming. [5] Con correctly argues that the barbecue theory would be defeated by showing that the volume of charcoal is insufficient. So back to the discussion, what's the volume of CO2 output? The United States alone has a crude oil energy output of 19,420,000,000,000,000 British Thermal Units [6]. Is this comparable to backyard barbecues? [5] The fifth report by the International Panel of Climate Change [7] claims that "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system." It presents evidence that the CO2 output of fossil fuels and anthropogenic land usage together total are nearly three times higher than the CO2 output of rock weathering, volcanic activity, total respiration of life forms, forest fires and freshwater outgassing combined. [5] Con offers a reconstruction of the last 650,000,000 years, but this is a discussion about the years 1900 to 2200. Geological time is slow enough to be irrelevant in the 3-century blip we are discussing. In this context, hundreds of millions of years is simply beyond a defensible scale. CO2 levels are not higher than what they were 100,000,000 years ago before the existence of humans, but they are higher than they have been in 400,000 years. "Current climate science has no explanation for the major climate variations of the past 2,000 years." I have BOP for my claims about modern climate observations, but Con needs to provide a source for this claim. "That's why the discredited global warming hockey stick attempted to prove there were no past variations." Source and specifics would be appreciated. Con claims that CO2 follows temperature rather than causing temperature, claiming the graphs are in a link. I would appreciate if Con could import these graphs into DBO and reference them as individual images, as I am unable to find an image that matches this description in the link provided. The Nature article quoted by Con demonstrates that solar insulation changed the Earth's climate more in 2,000 years than the human race has in 250 years. It does not suggest that the factors it discusses could compete with the human race during industrial and post-industrial ages. Again, this is a discussion about a 300 year timespan. [5] "Historically, Arctic ice melts when Antarctic ice increases in a cycle of 40 to 60 years called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)." The Pacific Decadal Oscillation has no relation to the absorption of energy by the oceans from the years 1970 to 2010, which have shown a strong increase in net energy both in the liquid oceans and in the polar ice caps. “The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.” Both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are supposed to be far below freezing, and neither will commence a serious level of shrinking until they reach the melting temperature of water. As the top of the ice caps melt, the water runs down and is cooled by the ice below, slightly reducing or maintaining the total mass of the ice while possibly increasing the total area. However, it also increases the average temperatures of the Antarctic and Arctic. 5. http://www.climatechange2013.org... 6. http://www.usdebtclock.org... 7. http://www.climatechange2013.org...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Exists/1/
  • PRO

    Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." ... [5]...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    My opponent first makes the argument that man-made Co2 can't be the problem. The reason being is that Co2 is only a small part of the gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. Secondly, that man-made Co2 emissions are much less than natural Co2 emissions. The problem with this is my opponent is only taking a small part of the picture. Trying to argue down main stream science with faulty logic and withholding information. My opponent's argument about man-made Co2 is a cherry picking fallacy. "Logical Form: Evidence A and evidence B is available. Evidence A supports the claim of person 1. Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2. Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." [5] My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"[6] So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked. [6] Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made climate change. Next, my opponent states that humans only generate a small portion of the Co2 compared to natural emissions. This is another cherry picking fallacy. [5] Yes, humans generate far less Co2 that natural, but the natural Co2 is absorbed by nature too, thus the naturally generated Co2 is canceled out by the natural absorption. The anthropogenic Co2 is not naturally absorbed and thus accumulates. For more information about the global carbon cycle follow link seven. [7] Furthermore, even small amounts of Co2 can cause an amplification effect also known as a positive feedback cycle. This is why even a small amount of Co2 increase can cause dramatic changes to the climate. "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] My opponent then contends that climate change is political and has to do with corrupt industry. Yet, big oil is also powerful and politically influential. It would make more sense that the anti-man-made climate change movement is funded by a corrupt big oil and other fossil fuels interest groups. The 90th richest person on the planet owns 11.3 billion from oil alone. A person can only imagine how powerful and how much money all the oil in the world is worth and the oil industry is worth. "the vast formation of oil-bearing rock that sits beneath much of North Dakota and Montana. With his 72% ownership stake in publicly traded Continental, Hamm is now worth $11.3 billion, making him the 90th richest person on the planet, according to Forbes newly released annual ranking of the world’s billionaires."[9] Finally, my opponent suggests no alternative explanation for why the Earth's temperatures continue to increase. Whether my opponent thinks the temperatures are not increasing or are increasing but by non-made man causes is ambiguous. In contrast, I offer main stream science to tell how and why the Earth's temperatures are increasing. Sources 5. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... 6. http://www.space.com... 7. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. http://www.forbes.com...

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

    Definitions: Climate Change: the warming of earth's...

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Definitions: Climate Change: the warming of earth's climate that is caused by human activity. NOTE: global warming means the same thing. Greenhouse gas: a gas contributing to climate change Emission: the greenhouse gas output of a machine(car, factory, etc.) Good Luck!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-the-most-dangerous-threat-humans-face./1/

CON

  • CON

    If you're saying me murdering your family will hold me...

    Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

    "New variables? New from what? " There was never plastic before humans arrived - is that not a new variable? Emissions from gas-powered vehicles have never been around until we invented them, Is that not a new variable? "And have evolved through natural Earthly means" So we weren't here over 200, 000 - when we came into being, Were we not a new variable? A new species? A new life form? Naturally or not, We came into existence and weren't always around. "Here's where the debate shifts to a "Pre-Determinism vs Free Will" debate" Uhh. . No? If you're saying me murdering your family will hold me accountable due to free will, Then climate change that was done due to human involvement is an act of free will and we'd be accountable - right? "I actually believe we ARE "foreign entities"" Then you've destroyed your whole argument by saying if x, Then p. And then claiming not x - which was your only logical path to p. You said we can't say human-caused climate change is possible without saying we are a foreign entity. Then you say we ARE a foreign entity. Even if I don't agree with you, You've already destroyed your own argument. "One must conclude that if Humans are causing If you're saying me murdering your family will hold me accountable due to free will, Then climate change that was done due to human involvement is an act of free will and we'd be accountable - right? "I actually believe we ARE "foreign entities"" Then you've destroyed your whole argument by saying if x, Then p. And then claiming not x - which was your only logical path to p. You said we can't say human-caused climate change is possible without saying we are a foreign entity. Then you say we ARE a foreign entity. Even if I don't agree with you, You've already destroyed your own argument. "One must conclude that if Humans are causing Climate Change in a catastrophic way. . . We MUST be foreign entities in the Universe, Since without our ability to consciously comprehend, Study, And adjust to life conditions (the warming of the Earth, For example) we must be separate and apart from the subjects we are studying. " That makes as much sense as saying that black people are racist against rocks. "It's accurate in the sense that it's impossible only if we are evolved entities which developed from the Earth" You've yet to prove this. If humans evolved on Earth with intelligence, And then created destruction, And noticed this destruction as they advanced scientifically, What about this would require us to be foreign bodies? "And implanted into it through an Intelligent Designer/ God. " Is this actually a debate where you want to prove God? What is this BS? You're argument makes no sense, And your conclusion comes out of no where and isn't backed up by anything else you've said. There is no God, And we are not foreign entities. How with these conclusions can we say climate change by humans is impossible? What about being put on the Earth through evolution or God makes human-caused climate change possible or impossible?

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

    if climate change is real why is then why there hasnt...

    climate change is fake

    if climate change is real why is then why there hasnt been any global warning since 1997, the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal it also begs an obvious question: how can we be experiencing global warming if theres no actual global warming? http://rightwingnews.com...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/climate-change-is-fake/1/
  • CON

    This debate is about whether the ORIGIN of climate change...

    Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

    16kadams has misunderstood the debate. This debate is not whether modern climate change is due to humans. This debate is about whether the ORIGIN of climate change is due to humans. As I have proven and 16k not rebutted, climate change has been happening for millions of years, and we have only been here for 200,000 years, making it ridiculous that humans cause the earliest climate change. https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com... My rich text isn't working, but you can see form the graphs that global warming has been happening for over 550 million years. We have been around for 200,000 and could not have started that change from 550 million years ago. P1: This debate is if climate change has started because of humans P2: Climate change has been happening for over 550 million years P3: Humans have been around for 200,000 years Conclusion: We are not the origin of global warming Defense of P1: See resolution Defense of P2: See graphs Defense of P3: http://www.universetoday.com... Conclusion Everything 16kadams has said is irrelevant. We are not arguing about modern climate change; we are arguing if humans started climate change. Since climate change has started before humans were even on the earth, it is obvious we haven't started it.

  • CON

    10. http://www.tmgnow.com...] The past 17 years has been...

    Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

    Since 2000, CO2 has risen by 54% with no increase in global temperatures. Why? Pro cannot provide a good answer to that question, and neither can the IPCC. The theory that CO2 dominates climate is therefore wrong. It may be that CO2 is contributing to warming at some level, but that a greater cooling factor is swamping the CO2 effect. If that's the case, there is no basis for supposing that CO2 will dominate climate in the future, because whatever cooling dominated the past 17 years may be the same or greater in the future. The IPCC cannot explain why a 54% increase in CO2 produced no increase in temperature. As described in [8], Von Storch systematically ran all the IPCC computer models of the climate, and found that the actual temperatures for the last 17 years fell outside the model predictions. That's after the models had been tweaked using knowledge of the lack of global warming. The models still could not describe the past, so clearly they cannot be counted on to predict the future. Pro only offers at base the fallacious logic that correlation means causation. But when CO2 increases by 54% in the past 17 years, and there is no increase in global temperature, then even the correlation claim fails. Solar activity correlates well with global temperature for the past 17 years, for the entire 20the century and for as long as records of sunspot activity have been kept, which is back through the Middle Ages. Solar activity is discounted by CO2 theorists on the grounds that the measured irradiance of the sun, i.e.. the heat output, has not changed enough in recent decades to account for the temperature changes. However, solar activity produces changes in cosmic ray levels, and there is a theory that cosmic rays have an effect that changes cloud cover. The solar cosmic ray theory is also one of correlation, and cannot be considered causation until the mechanism is proved. However, unlike CO2 theory, the correlation actually holds over long and short periods. There is a close correlation of solar sunspot activity and global temperature for the past century. [10. http://www.tmgnow.com...] The past 17 years has been at the leveling off and start of a downward trend in sunspots after a period of increase during the 1980s and 1990s. [11. http://notrickszone.com...] Historical reconstruction shows CO2 does not dominate climate I pointed to reconstructions of climate for the distant past and the for the past 2000 years to show that climate has varied more than in recent years, and without any apparent relation to atmospheric CO2 levels. Pro argues that past climate doesn't count because we are only discussing the past century and the next century. Past climate counts because the laws of physics do not change at all over time. Consequently, if factors other than CO2 have always dominated climate, then it's unreasonable to suppose that a new CO2-only physics began recently. Pro's principle argument is that correlation proves causation. If there was no such correlation in the past, that is not sustained. Since the chance correlation only applies for a short time, it's important to Pro's case that we not look at the hundreds, thousands, and millions of years when there was no such correlation. Here are the two climate reconstructions referenced in the previous round: The climate of the past 2000 years shows there is nothing special about the past century. Climate has always been changing by about as much as in the past century, and often more. Global warming hockey stick discredited The global warming hockey stick was presented in the 2000 IPCC report. It purported to show that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were local to Europe and that climate had not changed substantially in the past 1000 years, until the warming from 1983-1997. The statistical error used in the calculation yielding the hockey stick was discovered by McKitrick. [12. "The Mann et al Northern Hemisphere 'Hockey Stick': A Tale of Due Diligence." published in "Shattered Consensus" edited by Patrick Michaels]. A good summary by a scientist who believes in human-caused global warming is from the MIT magazine Technology Review. [13. http://www.technologyreview.com...] The Wikipedia article, heavily biased towards CO2 theory claims that the hockey stick has since been proved because a recent analysis shows that recent temperatures were higher than the Medieval Warm Period [14. http://en.wikipedia.org...] However, the accompanying graph shows that the MWP and the Little Ice Age existed as worldwide climate change, which is what the hockey stick was mainly supposed to disprove. The most recent reconstruction [3] clearly disproves the hockey stick. CO2 follows temperature increase That CO2 lags temperature in past climate is well known, but I apologize for giving the wrong link in the previous round. A journal article published in 2012 gives the result: “Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most,” - Sune Olander Rasmussen [15. Watt provides graphs and links the Rasmussen paper http://wattsupwiththat.com...] Another set of graphs showing the lag is given at [16. http://joannenova.com.au...] Total sea ice is at a high Pro argued that shrinking Arctic ice proved that CO2 causes global warming. I pointed out that Antarctic ice is expanding, contradicting CO2 theory, and in keeping with the historically observed Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Pro responded that the ice doesn't melt until above the freezing point. Sure, but how was melting Arctic ice supposed to prove CO2 theory? The Antarctic ice has rapidly expanded since 2010, when Al Gore predicted it would be all gone by 2013. What this proves is that CO2 is not dominating climate. The natural PDO, not in the CO2 climate models is dominating the ice levels. The PDO seems to be linked to the second of three overlapping solar cycles, but the causation is unproved. Future CO2 levels are unknown I noted that even if CO2 dominates climate, there is no confident prediction of future CO2 levels. Nearly everyone agrees that the world is running out of fossil fuels, so there is an aggressive search for alternatives. A technological breakthrough, or a simple substantial rise in the price of oil could substantially lower the rate of CO2 increase. Pro did not respond.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Exists/1/
  • CON

    Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for...

    global climate change is human caused

    Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for obvious reasons), I will reiterate my rebuttals to her opening statement and premise of this argument: "global climate change is human caused" -I presented scientific arguments from liberal as well as conservative sources disproving this premise. My opponent (who, as Pro, has the burden of proof) never presented one argument in favor of this premise. My opponent contradicted this statement with the following "Climate change may result from: • Natural factors..." "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature" -Again, I presented scientific arguments contrary to this statement, even though my opponent never presented any scientific arguments in favor of this statement. I suggested it was impossible for humans to "cause" global climate change, which occurs and has occured without the presence of humans on this planet (according to scientific evidence from both liberal and conservative sources). "which if not stopped will result in global warming." -I presented arguments denouncing this statement. Global warming cannot be, and should not be stopped. If the Earth did not have a natural mechanism to warm it's climate, life on Earth would be impossible. My opponent conceded this with the statement "Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped." presented in Round 2. Not only did my opponent not present any scientific arguments in favor of her premise, she contradicted statements she intended to support her premise.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/global-climate-change-is-human-caused/1/
  • CON

    The ice age was only a blink in time ago, and man didn't...

    The big lie of climate change

    The myth of climate change is nothing but a lie dreamed up by the elite politicians in order to strike fear into poorer, more gullible nations in order to reduce the capabilities and wealth of the western world and to transfer that wealth to their minions in the poorer countries. The climate has always changed on this planet, many times quite rapidly, and with no influence by humans. The ice age was only a blink in time ago, and man didn't cause it and man didn't fix it, just as now, although the globalist elites would have us believe otherwise. The fact is that hydrocarbon fuels are a finite resource and we do need to find better options, but CO2 is not a harmful gas, it is actually just plant food, which is good. If you watched An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al "King of UN Capitalists" Gore, and believed the lies about AGW then you are just a minion of the UN Agenda 21 machine, or you are looking to capitalize on the fear created by such a blatant propagandist production.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • CON

    Dissent from CO2 theory is viewed by proponents as...

    Climate change

    We have agreed the global warming exists. I know of no scientist who dissents from CO2 theory that denies that global warming exists, although perhaps there is one somewhere. The idea that the claim of "no global warming" is common is nonsense thrown up by CO2 theorists for the purpose of claiming victory when they prove that global warming exists. It was never in dispute. Pro wonders how it can be that temperatures can be claimed to stable or even decreasing for the past decade while conceding that global warming exists. There is nothing mysterious, it depends upon the time scale. For example, the overall trend has been warming since the last ice age, decreasing since the Holocene Optimum, and increasing since the Little Ice Age. The last decade has been about stable. Pro apparently grants that the IPCC is 70% government bureaucrats, that the conclusions are not subject to peer review, and that the scientists involved to not get to vote on the report. Pro objects only that the scientist, Landsea, who resigned in protest only suspected political motivation but didn't actually observe it. Landsea's exact words were, "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized." Landsea spelled it out separately: "The lead author of the fourth AR's chapter on climate observations, Kevin Trenberth, participated in a press conference that warned of increasing hurricane activity as a result of global warming. It is common to hear that man-made global warming represents the "consensus" of science, yet the use of hurricanes and cyclones as a marker of global warming represents a clear-cut case of the consensus being roundly ignored. Both the second and third IPCC assessments concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. Moreover, most climate models predict future warming will have only a small effect--if any--on hurricane strength. "It is beyond me," Landsea wrote, "why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming."" http://www.aei.org... I never said the IPCC leadership had a secret agenda. They are sincere in their beliefs and aim to save the world by suppressing dissent. Look at the past scientific consensus that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, or that the Steady State Theory was correct. No doubt their were strong beliefs involved, but what ultimately won was the science. There is perhaps a thousand times as much money in supporting global warming as opposing it. Tens of billions billions flow from governments into the global warming industry every year. Al Gore alone has made $100 million off of it. If there is suspicion about motivation, it should be directed at advocates. Exxon puts about $1.5 million per year into dissent, which is nothing by comparison. Dissent from CO2 theory is viewed by proponents as heresy, which is why they make such a big deal about in being evil. The book "The Deniers" documents in detail the abuse levied upon anyone who does not toe the line. Dissenting scientists have absolutely impeccable credentials and publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals. Pro made a string of assertions about CO2, but he didn't make a single scientific reference in support of his assertions. In the previous round I provided a link to an article by a climate scientist that explained the weak dependence of temperature on CO2. In addition, "All of the IPCC climate models reduce low- and middle-altitude cloud cover with warming, a positive feedback. This is the main reason for the differences in warming produced by different climate models (Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009). I predict that this kind of model behavior will eventually be shown to be incorrect. And while the authors were loathe to admit it, there is already some evidence showing up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that this is the case (Spencer et al., 2007; Caldwell and Bretherton, 2009)." http://www.drroyspencer.com... Con produced an excellent reference in the last round, http://www.geocraft.com.... In particular, the graph http://www.geocraft.com... shows the long term relationship between climate and CO2. In the long history, there is no relationship. Note that on the graph, the last 600,000 years is a collapsed to a point. The author of Con's reference describes the lack of a relationship relationship between CO2 and temperature: "Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20� C (68� F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12� C (54� F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today! ... Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. ... To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today." CO2 levels have been dropping for 600 million years, and temperature has been going up and down independent of the CO2. There was an ice age with 12 times the atmospheric CO2. Right now we are both CO2 deprived and temperature deprived relative to the history. It's worth noting where most of the carbon has gone. It is not mainly in fossil fuels. It is in the carbonates in limestone formed as the skeletons of sea creatures accumulate on the ocean floor. Pro's reference disproves the theory that the earth's temperature is very sensitive to CO2. There is no possible consistent rationalization for having an ice age with 12 times the CO2 if temperature depends strongly on CO2. In fact, the temperature on Venus proves *insensitivity* to CO2. The earth has 380 ppm of CO2. Venus has 960,000 ppm. The surface of Venus is 867 F, which about 737 K. Earth is 288 K. Venus is 0.7 of earth's distance to the sun. Since radiation falls as the square of the distance, if Venus had no increased greenhouse effect, it would be twice as hot as earth due to being closer to the sun; it would be 576 K. So having roughly 3500 times as much CO2 on Venus produces a rise of about 150 K = 150 C. If the effect were linear, doubling earth's CO2 would therefore produce a temperature rise of 150/3500 = 0.05 degrees or so. That is extremely insensitive. There is a factor of several thousand to be explained between what CO2 global warming theory predicts and the observation of Venus. The rest of Pro's references are the equivalent of blog posts in which non-scientists state their faith and proclaim victory. Pro is quite right that there are many factors affecting climate. Pro's burden is to prove that right now the most important factor is CO2. Global warming advocates are adamant that for the past few decades the Sun has been inactive, and so there was nothing to explain the rise in temperature from the 70's to late 90s except CO2. The test of the theory is whether it would predict the future. It has not. Temperatures have remained stable or decreased slightly for the past decade, despite CO2 rising and continued claims that CO2 is dominating climate. What CO2 theorists overlook is the activity of the solar magnetosphere, which tracks recent climate quite well. It's not CO2, it's the sun. The resolution is negated.

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

    I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we...

    Climate Change is man caused

    Thank you for clarifying on that. I think you were hoping to win the debate just on that title, which in itself speaks indefinitely. I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, I have to clarify some things, because I don"t think we have a debate here. First, the title is plain wrong. Climate change happens regardless of human activity. It "can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations." (the same EPA source as my opponent). The last time CO2 levels were as high as today, it was around 15 million years ago. During that time, species still thrived. Second, burning fossil fuels is the most cost-effective, and the least damaging. Yes, I said least damaging. I won"t get into how because that is not the subject of our debate. Here are just a few: [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... Long gone is the time when most scientists scratched their heads about ice caps melting. Yes, 2014 is the hottest year. Yes, climate change is happening. But at the same time, we are putting planks for a global cooling, in a sense. As of right now, I can safely say we are utilizing more renewable energy than at any other time in our existence. As for my opponents sources, I don"t see any of them mentioning that. I"m sorry, but the subject of your sources (yubanet, epa, time, scientific american) either state what global warming is, or are in redundant in stating "2014 is the hottest year". None of them are the subject of human activity causing global warming. If you still insist of debating the topic, I would be glad to, although as I"ve mentioned, there really is no debate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-man-caused/1/
  • CON

    That refutes Pro's contention that because Venus is hot,...

    Climate change

    We have an unresolved disagreement about what contribution of CO2 to climate is "significant." CO2 theory advocates generally attribute all of climate change to CO2. They argue that there is no significant solar activity of any kind, that arctic ice could not have melted due to the Pacific Oscillation by which it has melted regularly in past times, and that hurricanes that used to run in cycles no longer do so. So for debate purposes, I'd say that if half of global warming were due to CO2, that would be significant. Pro suggested in round 2 that "significant" ought to be judged as enough to make enacting cap and trade worthwhile. By that standard, then if all of global warming is due to to CO2, it still wouldn't be significant. That's because Europe enacted cap and trade some time ago, and CO2 was not reduced at all as a consequence. The Holocene Optimum (3000-5000 years ago) was warmer than CO2 theorists claim it will get, and that was one of the most prosperous periods of human history. The polar bears survived as well. If Pro understood that no scientist opposed to CO2 theory maintained that global warming did not exist, then why did he put it as the first contention of his debate argument? Whether Pro believed the error of fact or not, it appears in Pro's argument, and is therefore relevant to the debate. Having the contention implies that those who deny the theory is completely out of touch with reality. Therefore is was relevant to refute the implication. I did the analysis of CO2 effects on Venus correctly. I acknowledged that 380 ppm (I should have said 368 ppm, which is more accurate.) of CO2 leads to our present temperature. I claimed that the sensitivity to CO2 above 380 would be small. Pro claimed that the sensitivity above present levels was high, and that Venus showed that sensitivity. To disprove Pro's assertion, I started with the assumption of what temperatures would be if both Earth and Venus had 380 ppm of CO2, compensating for Venus being closer to the Sun. The rise above that baseline that is actually observed is about 150 degrees and it is due to adding (960,000 - 380) ppm of CO2. That's 0.05 degree per extra 380 ppm. That refutes Pro's contention that because Venus is hot, it shows that temperature is sensitive to CO2. Note that the main greenhouse gas on earth is not CO2, it is water vapor. That allows CO2 proponents to tweak the computer models so that when CO2 fails to explain warming, an induced multiplier effect from water vapor is claimed. Pro responds by producing an unlabeled graph from an unknown source that shows that while overall there is low sensitivity to CO2, that early may be in a portion of the curve where there is still some sensitivity. The x-axis of the graph appear to be logarithmic, but it isn't stated, so we don't know for sure where the 380 point should be plotted. There is no clue as to whether the y-axis (temperature) is linear or logarithmic, so even if we knew the 380 point, we couldn't read of the temperature increase claimed for going to 760 ppm. What Pro's graph concedes is that CO2 effects are extremely non-linear. What Pro seems to disputes is the exact shape of the curve or where we are on the curve. The non-linearity of the CO2 response is calculated from physical principles by T.J. Nelson http://brneurosci.org... "What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics.... doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is the same as the previous increase." Nelson continues by fitting the CO2 data from the 20th century to the known temperature rise. "This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification, if we make the reasonable assumption that the same amplification mechanisms that occurred previously will also occur in a world that is two degrees warmer." Pro gives references, but they are a mess of blog-like conclusions from non-scientists and biased Wikipedia articles. Moreover, Pro frequently fails to claim what it is in the article that he claims to be supporting his claim. Other times I cannot find and match at all. His [12] is supposed to support a claim about Mercury, but I cannot find any reference to Mercury. He cited an article claiming to temperature for the last decade that showed no such data. Pro should reference articles written by credible scientists and quote or say what it is that supports his point. The second graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com... compares actual temperature with climate model prediction. Temperature have been level for the past decade, and "August 2008 was 3 C below June 1988, rather than projected 5 C above" Pro claims that there is a consensus of the "vast majority of scientists" that CO2 theory is correct. The main evidence he cites supporting that claim is the IPCC report. However, the IPCC itself is 70% non-scientists, a small elite determines the conclusions and edits the chapters to match their conclusions, and none of the contributors are allowed to vote on whether the report is valid. There is no evidence that if there is a consensus at all, that it is anything like a "vast majority." In addition to the hurricane expert who quite in protest, "Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC's expert reviewers' panel asserts, 'There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.' " and "the [2001] report's lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, "The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen." http://townhall.com... Recently, Christy identified the clear ideological beliefs of several authors and noted, "The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group ..." http://news.bbc.co.uk... Pro also cites the bogus study by Naomi Oreskes, a historian who searched scientific articles and claimed to find no articles contrary to CO2 theory. Oreskes only looked to for certain key phrases in certain journals, phrases basically related to political stance on the issue. Most scientific articles don't make any conclusions one way on the other about global warming, they just report on a study of some aspect of the science. It's easy to make a list of hundreds of scientific articles providing evidence contrary to CO2 theory, but none are included in Orestes study. Separately, I have compiled a lengthy critique of the Oreskes study, http://factspluslogic.com... Pro provided a reference that shows no relationship between CO2 and global warming over the past 600 million years. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were 12 time present. Pro responds that over history there were many things going on in climate. That's true, but it also shows that whatever the CO2 effect upon climate it has been insignificant relative to all those other causes. So for 600 million years, CO2 at levels a dozen times greater than now has been insignificant, but now we are supposed to believe it is dominant. Physical theory, past history, and current observation should CO2 has no significant climate effect.

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

    The same is true of other CO2 advocates, quoted by Voosen...

    Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

    There has been no global warming for 17 years, despite a 54% increase in CO2 Pro now argues there is something wrong with NASA's Remote Sensing Satellite (RSS) data [6] because it does not measure temperature with a thermometer. No scientist, to my knowledge, has ever questioned the ability of RSS to measure temperature. Satellite measurements are far superior to the spotty coverage of weather stations subject to urban heat island effects. Satellites provide global coverage at much higher densities than attainable with in situ observations. In situ observations also suffer from non-uniform temporal coverage and undocumented changes in the instrumentation used that can lead to local biases and increased uncertainty. … Satellites can measure the temperature of the atmosphere by evaluating thermal emission from gases in the atmosphere. ... By choosing the different measurement frequencies, and thus different values of absorptivity, the emission from different layers of the atmosphere can be measured. RSS studies the measurements made by 3 series of satellite-borne microwave sounders in order to construct long-term, climate-quality atmospheric temperature datasets for use by the scientific community. [24. http://www.remss.com...] If temperature continued to climb in the past 17 years, we would expect advocates of the theory of CO2 dominated climate to trumpet the success of climate models. But those advocates recognize the fact that the models have failed, the Voosen article I cited makes it clear that CO2 advocates are struggling for an explanation of why the models have failed. I explained in detail why there is no inconsistency with having no temperature increase in 17 years and having the 2001-2010 decade averaging warmer than the 90s. Pro ignored my explanation and claimed that there is a conflict. Pro said I claimed that the temperature anomaly was reset for each decade. That's nonsense, I made no such claim, and if it were reset every decade then the temperature anomalies would be a string of zeros. The anomaly is an arbitrary offset to prevent graphs from having to be scaled with the average global temperature of around 59 degrees F or 287 degrees Kelvin. Pro's graph shows global warming to have stopped since 2000. In additional to providing the actual data and the opinions of scientists who advocate CO2-dominated climate, I provided the work of Von Storch and separately of Mauritsen who showed that CO2 models could not explain the pause. [7] Pro claims I misrepresented Von Storch because in 2006 Von Storch said he believed CO2 dominates climate, but in 2012 Von Storch admitted the CO2 models failed. I quoted Von Storch as saying “we find that the continued stagnation in global warming, from 1998 to 2012, is inconsistent with model predictions, even at the 2% confidence level.” [17] That's not a misrepresentation. Scientists become convinced by unrelenting contrary data. The same is true of other CO2 advocates, quoted by Voosen [20], who finally have given up trying to defend the models. I cited Tinsdale's book [7] for it's extensive comparisons showing the CO2 models fail. Pro argues that I needed to have shown and argued every piece of evidence in the book. No, all I needed to do was to make a claim and cite the evidence. To refute Tinsdale, Pro might have cited some contrary compendium showing all the models were on target, but there is no such evidence to be cited. Some of the CO2 advocates claim the lack of global warming is due to something other than cosmic ray clouds seeding. Hansen supposes it might be reflective soot from coal burning in China. For the present debate, it suffices to say that CO2 is not dominating climate, and so until the science is resolved future predictions cannot be made reliability under the assumption that CO2 dominates. Cosmic ray effects, or something else associated with sunspots, are clearly the most likely factor because the sunspot trend since the early 1800s has been generally in favor of warming, but sunspots activity also tracks the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the global warming pause from the 40s through the 70s, the 70s sharp cooling, and the current 17 year lack of global warming. All this was shown clearly in the data presented in the debate. Current models do not include all the natural forcings Pro's graphs of temperature with and without CO2 are purely math model predictions. He says that they include sunspot and ocean oscillation effects, but they unquestionably do not. That's apparent because the real temperatures post 2000 did not rise as the graphs show, and also because the projections go out into the future. Voosen [20] specifically referenced these elements missing from the models. The “natural forcings” in the model projections are defective because they do not include the cosmic ray and magnetic effects of sunspots, rather only the inconsequential changes in irradiance. Pro began by arguing that that we should not look at temperatures before 1900, because that's when anthropogenic global warming began. However, the physics of climate do not change, and temperature reconstructions on scales of millions of years, hundreds of thousands of years, and the past 2000 years show that CO2 has never dominated climate, no matter what the source of CO2. CO2 levels have been many times current levels. In the past, CO2 increase was a product of warming, not a cause. CO2 may increase warming slightly, but it's never prevented natural forcings from driving temperatures down. To show that CO2 now dominates climate, advocates must show that no other natural factors are significant, but current lack of warming shows that the models are dead wrong. In this round Pro introduced the argument that CO2-induced warming began in the 1800s. But then what caused the preceding Medieval Warm Period and Little Age? It's far more likely that whatever caused those major climate changes ended, producing the subsequent warming. Those major climate events were tightly correlated with sunspot activity. To argue it was CO2, a switch must have been flipped around 1825 causing sunspots to no longer have an effect and CO2 to start dominating. Polar sea ice has increased to a current high, contrary to CO2 theory Pro began by claiming that the decrease in Arctic Ice proved that CO2 causes global warming. That claim evaporated in the light of evidence that Arctic ice has been disappearing and reappearing for centuries with the cycle of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is not in the CO2 climate models. Also, CO2 warming does not explain why Antarctic ice has increased so much so that total ice has had a net increase. Pro shifted to arguing that total accumulated ice on earth has been decreasing since the end of the Little Age, but that is better explained by sunspot activity than CO2. No one claims the Little Age was due to a sudden CO2 shortage. Future CO2 levels are unpredictable. Pro offered only unsupported assertions to counter cited expert opinion that we are rapidly running out of fossil fuels, and technology will provide substitutes. The sun, not CO2, dominates climate We are seeing the real world destroy the theory of CO2 dominating climate. The CO2 math models cannot be tuned to explain how a 54% increase in CO2 has failed to produce and increase in global temperatures. For a while, the notion was that the failure was some transient glitch that would quickly disappear. After 17 years, it's clear that there is a fundamental lack of understanding reflected in climate models. CO2 theorists have been fervent in clinging to their theory, but they are nonetheless still scientists and ultimately obliged to yield their theory to the contrary data. I'm sure that science will ultimately succeed in getting climate models that match reality, and that the models will include some effect of CO2. But it should not be a surprise that the sun dominates climate, even though we are still figuring out exactly how.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-Climate-Change-Exists/1/