Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewClimate Change Exists
Climate change is most definitely real. 97% percent of the world's scientists agree on this, and its effects are already showing. It is most definitely real, and those who argue against it are actually people who make the energy that causes climate change. And if we don't regulate it, the Earth is doomed. Climate change is real and being caused by factories, fossil fuels, and cars
Climate Change is happening
Climate Change is causing the Earth to warm up measurably, and there are already signs of disaster. I argue that this is happening because there are scientific facts to prove it. Out of 918 peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject, 0% disagreed that climate change is happening, but in newspaper articles, 53% were unsure. This proves that climate change is happening, but scientists are having trouble conveying the information and other data to the people of the world.
Climate change is a fraud
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.
Anthropogenic climate change.
Round four defense "The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8] As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. " Capitalistslave First, there would have to be counter evidence to withhold. I do not perceive that I withheld any evidence, any my opponent has not shown any counter evidence. My opponent has failed to meet his/her burden of proof by showing that there is evidence to withhold. Second, if any evidence is withheld it is weak, thus the fallacious of the argument is small. Third, there is the fallacy fallacy. "Form: Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious. Therefore, C is false. Exposition: Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious. " [15] Even if I did withhold strong evidence, it doesn't mean Anthropogenic climate change is false, all it means is my argument is fallacious. "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case." Capitalistslave True, climate change scientists are not infallible, but considering the scientific scholarly peer reviewed sources, the percentage of climate change scientist who support versus opposing man-made climate change, and the burden of proof is to be shared equally, I have more than met my burden of proof for showing the existence of man-made climate change. An alternative explanation is the USA court system. We do not require 100% proof to convict someone, instead we require a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and preponderance of the evidence in civil. I have shown in my round two argument that we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change exists. Finally, considering the scope of the entire world and global climate change, any direct evidence can be considered non-sequitur because it would add too little to support the claim. I would literally have to type 30,000 some characters to provide enough direct evidence to prove anthropgenic climate change. ""Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9] The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic." Capitalistslave The evidence may add very little and could qualify as non-sequitur. Yet, remember the fallacy fallacy. [15] More importantly, the scope of the entire planet is very large, so practically any argument I make giving specific examples could qualify as the last part of the non-sequitur fallacy. "adds very little to support to the conclusion." For example, the glaciers melting are just one small part of the entire world's ecosystem. Therefore, this could be considered a non-sequitur fallacy. Yet, evidence is cumulative. Individually the glaciers melting and the heatwaves might be non-sequitur, but together with a several more events and these would be significant enough to no longer qualify as non-sequitur and instead be a fully functional argument. Think of a bunch of straws in a haystack. Each straw could be considered non-sequitur taken individually, yet enough straws form a haystack. A person wouldn't dismiss the entire haystack as non-sequitur just because each individual straw adds little evidence for the conclusion, the existence of a haystack. Just as a person shouldn't dismiss small evidence that supports the conclusion, as long as there enough other straws to make a full argument. Now if my entire argument was just the heat waves, yes this would be non-sequitur, but considering the other evidence available that accumulates with the heat-waves, the heat waves cannot be dismissed. "In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. " Captalistslave There is many alternative explanations for this. One is that awareness of global climate change has increased, and thus governments and their people are more prepared to deal with such events. Another, is that technology has increased and therefore weather stations are better able to warn residents of the danger. "This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. " Captalistslave If I wanted to prove that an invisible gas like carbon monoxide existed, showing the amount of people that died from carbon monoxide annually would be an effective method. As humans we do not take lightly the deaths of our fellow human beings. People want explanations. I contend that showing that 150,000 people die annually from man-made global climate change is an excellent indicator of whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists or not. My opponent seems to have divided my argument into two charactories. Indirect evidence and direct small non-sequitor evidence. Dismissing the indirect evidence for not being direct, the 97% consensus, and the direct evidence for being too insignificant to prove man-made climate change. The direct and indirect evidence for anthropgenic climate change is massive. Just because, I did not directly show this massive evidence, does not mean I was incorrect. I decided it was best to give a brief argument from high quality sources. Knowing that the information is avaliable and nobody wants to read an extremely long debate. Thank you for your time and energy reading. Sources. 15. http://fallacyfiles.org...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
R3 Rebuttals "Studies Contradict Man Made Warming Anthropogenic climate change is not real. Yes, the climate changes, but humans aren't the cause of it." Repcon 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] 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] "Manipulation by Scientists and Bribing by the Government One of the biggest science scandals, Climategate, occurred in 2009. Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia Climatic Research Unit, and statements from the emails contradict anthropogenic climate change. " Repcon "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] The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias. "These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [15] "This bias completely destroys the point of researching issues like climate change. Research isn't supposed to be "Let's try to prove our political agenda.". It's supposed to be a non partisan look into an issue affecting our lives. How can we accept something as a fact if the people researching the issue are lying to us." Repcon Climate scientists aren't lying to us. There are multiple safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. Just for starters the peer review system. As for Mars we understand so little about Mars atmosphere that this is weak evidence at best. Furthermore, the tempature increase on Mars can be explained by dust storms. "Conclusion The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began. So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations."[16] Solar activity from the Sun is at a low. "Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began." [16] Thanks for debating. Sources. 13. https://skepticalscience.com... 14. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 15. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 16. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
Climate change is real.
Greetings and welcome to the debate. In this round, I will present my key reasons for believing that climate change is indeed real, And not a hoax, As certain political leaders have said. But first, We must define climate change. The official definition of climate change is: a change in global or regional climate patterns, In particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. My first reason is that we have seen a huge increase in COS22; levels in the atmosphere, And this can be correlated with human industrial activity. In fact, Atmospheric COS22; levels are directly proportionate to human industrial activity. And, Increasing COS22; levels lead to a predictable rise in temperature. You may say that climates change anyway, And COS22; levels will fluctuate naturally, But it is no coincidence that it starts changing rapidly the moment humans figure out how to mine coal and burn fossil fuels. My second reason is that the Earth's temperature has risen by approximately 1"C since 1969. This might not seem like much, But in comparison to previous climate changes, It is vastly significant. Ocean temperatures have also risen by 0. 7"F, Killing a statistically significant proportion of the Great Barrier Reef. My final reason is that Arctic sea ice is shrinking, And polar bears may see the first iceless summer by 2050. So, We can conclude that climate change is indeed real, And not a hoax. I await my opponent's argument!
Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists
"Since 2000, CO2 has risen by 54% with no increase in global temperatures"? Putting aside that ten years is only three percent of our three-century discussion, the decade from 2000-2010 actually experienced the highest average temperature anomaly of any decade since before 1900. [5] This is why the fifth IPCC report's "Summary for Policy Makers"[7] boldly stated that "each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850," and could also be why CON provides no source for his claim that the years 2000 through 2010 have "experienced no increase in global temperatures." Hans Von Storch told the House of Representatives in 2006 that "Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."[8] CON has attempted to represent Hans Van Storch as follows: "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." Von Storch is not an author of CON's eighth source. The source has fifteen authors, but none are named Von Storch. These fifteen authors summarize their own work as follows: "We demonstrate that considerable ambiguity exists in the choice of parameters, and present and compare three alternatively tuned, yet plausible configurations of the climate model. The impacts of parameter tuning on climate sensitivity was less than anticipated." At no point do they imply that "the actual temperatures for the last seventeen years fell outside model predictions." Sunspot activity should affect climate, and if we examine the blue shades of the following "climate change anomalies" chart [7], we see sunspots match the evidence provided by CON in relation to both sunspots and Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with the dip in temperatures at or near the center of the 20th century. [5] The blue shading represents models that only account for "natural forcings" such as Solar Sunspot Activity and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The pink shading represents models that account for "both natural and anthropogenic forcings." This chart demonstrates the sharp contrast in these competing models, showing that sunspots and other natural forcings should provide a near-flat average global temperature (with curves similar to CON's first round 3 image in North America, Europe, and Africa) while anthropogenic forcings should show a sharp rise. Observations are given by the black lines, and appear to agree more with the "anthropogenic & natural" models than with the "natural" models alone. It appears that anthropogenic forcings have sharper relevance than sunspots. Con narrates his round 2 and my round 3 as follows: "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." It would be a drastic mistake to argue that "past climate doesn't count," and I thank CON for bringing this potential misunderstanding to my attention. I argued that "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." That is to say, the rate at which solar insulation changed the Earth's climate was more than (250 / 2000 = 0.125 ) 12.5% of our current rate of Climate change. Consistent change matters more to larger time frames, rate of change matters more to smaller time frames. This is not because the laws of physics change, in fact this is demonstrable in physics and mathematics. Because force = mass * acceleration, a constant net force of one Newton can accelerate a 1,000 kilogram car to 299,792,458 meters per second (speed of light) in 83 hours, 12 minutes [299,792,458 ms^2 / (1,000 kg * 60 s * 60 min) = 83.2 hr], but in the first hour will only bring the speed of the car to 3.6 meters per second [(60 s * 60 m) / 1,000 kg), or just over eight miles an hour. The longer the time measurement, the more relevant the "rate of change" or the "rate of rate of change" or the "value of the exponent," while the shorter the timespan, the more relevant the "application of force" or the "constant" or the "variable" or the "coefficient." The laws of physics and mathematics all but guarantee that the dominant force of climate change in a 300 year timespan is different from the dominant force of climate change in a 100,000,000 year timespan. The last 50 years of climate anomalies demonstrate that the next 200 years of climate anomalies will be dominantly anthropogenic, [5] while CON's arguments are founded on a combination of 1) the last 600 million years of climate change and 2) the specific decade of 2000-2010. Does he somehow mean that solar, volcanic, botanic, and other natural factors will accelerate their rate of influence by 100,000 times over for the first time in over 600,000,000 years? CO2 follows temperature increase in ice sheets with a lag of a few hundred years when assessing a timespan of 20,000 years, which is why CON's fifteenth source numbers its X-axis in units of 1000 years before 1950. [CON-15. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...;] The CO2 level of an ice sheet is measured by the CO2 level, while the temperature of the ice sheet is measured by the deuterium level. Scientists aren't sure exactly how long it takes for deuterium differences to show up in ice caps, which is why CON's fifteenth source states "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," rather than asserting that they have reversed the Greenhouse Effect. Their overall point is that the two measurements correllate. The 2013 IPCC report states that "Climate change models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence)."[7] I think we can all agree that Michael Mann was wrong ten years ago, and that the graph of climate anomalies is not shaped like a hockey stick, especially since that's not the topic of the debate I instigated, of the points I have argued, or of the sources I have cited. "Total Sea Ice is at a High"? Which is more relevant to "total sea ice" - area, or volume? CON made an argument about area, I made arguments about 1) volume and 2) temperature. Melting the ice caps reduces the volume, but the ice flows down and refreezes, which both warms the temperature and expands the area. Temperature is more closely linked to this debate than volume OR area. It has nothing to do with Al Gore, and the PDO is a mere blip on climate anomaly grids. "Future CO2 levels are unknown"? "Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years." - Me, round 1, CON has yet to respond. A technological breakthrough will not allow sunspots to catch up with Anthropogenic Climate Change before 2200. It will take them tens of thousands or even millions of years. "Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2." [5] 8. http://cstpr.colorado.edu...
Climate change
Climate change is real. It is practically all caused by human actions that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is backed by literally any study worth its salt. https://www. Ipcc. Ch/data/ https://www. Noaa. Gov Here are just a couple of sources proving my point. I suspect that my dear opponent will deny these outright, Calling them communist liars and whatnot, And generally not providing any sort of factual argument, Based on his acceptance post.
Anthropogenic climate change.
R3 Rebuttals "In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. " Capitalistslave While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] The reason so many articles have no stance is due to focusing on the unanswered questions as opposed to the answered questions. "In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it." Capitalistslave There are false positives and negatives. The same results do not need to be achieved with 100% accuracy. "The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. " Capitalistslave False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. "In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. " Capitalistslave .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] ""The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative" "Problems with CO2 emissions claims Since there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidenceâ€" that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth. " Capitalistslave Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10] "In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. " Capitalistslave The vast majority of the time, Co2 leads. This can be seen from the glacier evidence. The Earth tilts, rising the temperature, causing the oceans to release Co2. The release of Co2 into the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise further. We know this isn't happening now due to ocean acidification and more Co2 going into the ocean than out. " Marine National Monument, finds that sea-level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming, and other climate-related changes are expected to significantly affect the monument."[8] "Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles" Capitalistslave Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change. "11 944 climate abstracts from 1991â€"2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW," [6] 32.6% of 11,944 is roughly 3,000 scientific peer reviewed articles that support climate change. "there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming" Captialistslave Yes, there are negative feedback cycles too, like water evaporating, yet the positive is greater than the negative, meaning Co2 has an amplification effect. I will now reinforce that Co2 leads, natural Co2 cycles, and ocean acidification. "CO2 dissolves in waterto form carbonic acid. (It is worth noting that carbonic acid is what eats out limestone caves from our mountains.) In the oceans, carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions (H ), reducing pH, and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). " [9] As you can read, Co2 in the ocean must be increasing due to acidification of the oceans. [10] This further proves the Co2 increase is man-made. Milankovitch Cycles proves that Co2 leads. "As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). 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." [11] This also shows the positive feedback cycle of increased Co2. Despite being only a small percentage of the atmosphere. "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount." [13] As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models. Finally, I will end with the amplification effect. "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." [14] This shows there is greater postive feedback than negative. Although, the exact strength of the amplificaon effect is still debated. Sources. 6. http://iopscience.iop.org... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. http://www.noaa.gov... 9. https://skepticalscience.com... 10. https://skepticalscience.com... 11. https://skepticalscience.com... 12. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov... 13. https://skepticalscience.com... 14. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Acceleration Of Climate Change
According to The Center For Biological Diversity, the world’s climate is changing as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, and this causes the world’s temperature to rise. This is likely to reduce the amount of arable land on Earth, and it will cause food prices to increase. Furthermore, climate change is likely to result in rising sea levels. There even are major cities that could be flooded. As the population increases, the production of fossil fuels will increase. This is likely to result in climate change occurring at an increasingly rapid pace.
Climate Change is a real issue
The climate is not changing. The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organization that has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the climate is changing. This person will most likely have a secret agenda that has nothing to do with climate. 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. There is proof that climate change is all fake news started by Obama & crew. Those people who listen to that scientist are a jew 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. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
Anthropogenic climate change.
While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] -stupidape However, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive. It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real. "False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidape Well, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7. .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] -Stupidape There are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming. "Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]" -Stupidape However, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13] "Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change." -stupidape There are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt. "As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models." -stupidape This doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model? Sources: [11] http://www.nationalreview.com...; [12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf [13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
Climate change
The theory that CO2 drives climate rose to prominence in the 1980s. The earth had been cooling from the 30s into the 70s, and by the early 70s the threat of an approaching ice age was the consensus of scientists and was hyped in the press. CO2 theory was derived by tweaking computer models under the assumption that the sun was inactive, and climate was being driven by CO2. The models predicted that the earth would be, by last summer, eight degrees warmer than was actually observed. The models also fail to predict the distribution of temperatures from the surface upwards, and fail to predict the distribution from pole to pole. CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures over the last decade have been stable or slightly declining. In the history of the earth, there have been ice ages when there was 12 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere; it has never dominated climate. It's possible that CO2 makes a small contribution to climate cahnge, but clearly it's not the significant factor. If it were a key component, the CO2 models would have been proved right, rather than proved wrong. The magnetosphere of the sun has probably been driving climate change. CO2 theorists take the irradiance of the sun into account, but not the magnetosphere. Basically, solar magnetic activity moderates cosmic rays on earth, and the cosmic rays cause a cloud seeding effect which in turn affects cloud cover by the roughly 3% required to dominate climate. Historically, we know that a period of the Little Ice Age was characterize by there being virtually no sunspots. Cosmic ray theory is still unproved, but what is clear at this point is that something other than CO2 is in control of climate. The allegation is that Exxon-Mobile provides about $1.6 million per year to support non-CO2 research on global warming. Perhaps 40% of climate scientists dissent from CO2 theory, so Pro supposes that 40% of climate scientists can be bought for $1.6 million. In the current year, the US Congress alone "has provided over $2,000,000,000 in resources to address the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments, ... [including] $400,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which more than $200,000,000 is to enhance climate change research and regional assessments" http://www.climatesciencewatch.org.... This does not count the money poured in by private foundations and foreign governments. Al Gore alone has made $100 million from global warming advocacy, with his unscientific movie winning him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. An example of Gores "science" is that the IPCC says the worst case rise in sea level in the next hundred years is half a meter, but Gore shows New York being inundated. Gore regularly testifies before Congress in the role of an expert on global warming. In a BBC documentary, a researcher in the UK put it this way (paraphrasing): "If I apply for a government research grant to study, 'The food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex' I'll have a small chance of getting funding. But if I propose to study, 'The effects of global warming on the food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex,' my chances are much improved." http://www.amazon.com... Horner describes the outrageous bias shown in favor of CO2 theory and against opponents in his book: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed So Pro is contending that Exxon's measly $1.6 million completely invalidates any opposition research, but the billions paid in tribute to CO2 theory simply do not count. If anything, it validates the opposition as willing to carry on based upon dedication to science despite inadequate funding. In science, there is the peer review process by which publications are reviewed by fellow scientists. The peer review committees are likely to have majorities favoring CO2 theory. So how is it that opposing papers, which Pro dismisses as worthless because of their sponsorship, get past peer review? There is no question that hundreds of such papers are published; hundreds are listed on the co2science.org web site. My explanation is that most scientists are fundamentally honest, and most papers don't make global pronouncements, they chip away at parts of the problem. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it works well enough to filter out bogus papers. So how does Pro's theory of scientists being easily corrupted by small money ($1.6 million spread among thousands of scientists) explain the opposition papers passing peer review? Pro originally claimed that high temperatures on Venus proved that climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2. The fact is that 3500 times the CO2 produces 150 degrees of warming, so clearly it is insensitive. Pro then introduced an imaginary unlabeled curve to show that even though it was insensitive overall, it could be sensitive at our present low levels. That's a different argument. It could be, but is it? Pro offered nothing but an imaginary curve. I then referenced the curve shape computed from physical theory fitted to the data from the 20th century, showing that doubling the CO2 levels on earth would raise temperatures here by less than 2 degrees. Pro then responded that the curve does not work for Venus. True, it doesn't work for Venus. One reason is that CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, but it is the dominant greenhouse gas on Venus. On earth it is water vapor. A second reason is that the atmosphere on Venus is nearly a hundred times as dense as that of earth, and most of the greenhouse effect occurs relatively near the surface. This was explained in detail in the references I gave. This makes the calculation for Venus considerably different that from that for earth. Pro has not rebutted the calculations done for earth under the assumptions appropriate for earth, where water vapor dominates, the atmosphere is relatively thin, and we have actual data for the 20th century. Pro claims, "Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented." I did in fact respond to Pro's claim. I pointed out that Pro's claimed reference did not show the temperatures for the past decade. I then provided a reference that does show the temperatures, and clearly the temperatures have not been increasing as Pro claims. My exact words were, "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 I cannot logically attack both the existence of large consensus and the validity of the consensus. There is nothing illogical about attacking both. How many scientists believe something and whether it is correct or not are loosely coupled. Consensus on the shape of the earth or the 99.86% consensus on the theory of evolution are pretty convincing, but a 60/40 or 50/50 split is not a basis for claiming a reliable conclusion. CO2 theory has been taking severe hits as it continually fails to predict climate, and I'm not sure even if there is a consensus any more. Pro's only argument that there is a consensus is that the IPCC report exists. even though the IPCC is 70% non-scientists, the conclusions are dictated by a small elite, there is no peer review of the report, and scientists don't get to vote on it. The evidence is that CO2 is not a significant factor in recent climate change, and the variations in past climate cannot be attributed to CO2. CO2 to moderates climate, but for 600 million years the variations above that level have had little effect.
Anthropogenic global climate change.
But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen" -Stupidape This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well. "Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so." - Stupidape Yes, weather related deaths are happening. And they are declining. According to an article by a Department of the Interior Science and Technology policy analyst Indur M. Goklany, global death rates from weather-related disasters are declining [2]. "Death rates for the different categories of extreme events were generally lower in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s than in previous decades.". "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered the transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."- Stupidape In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that, "Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)." Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous. Goklany also says that, "Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change." This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated. "I will contend that anthropogenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent."-Stupidape Arguing that "anthropogenic climate change" is to blame for weather-related deaths doesn't prove it exists; it is simply an effect. An effect that wasn't supposed to be debated in the first place. "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%"100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al."- Stupidape The consensus cited is one example of how scientists manipulate data to push an agenda. Cook reviewed 11,914 abstracts, but only used 4,014 in his sample size because they expressed an opinion on global warming [3]. And from there, he got his 97% consensus, which is cherry picking, since he excluded the papers that did not give an opinion. But even THIS subset can't be relied on, as Former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Georgia and professor at the university Dr. David Legates and his colleagues reviewed Cook's consensus. Legates and his team found that, "Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not, in fact, supported it." [4]. Popular Technology reached out to scientists whose articles were in Cook's consensus. They said their papers were falsely classified or not included if they didn't endorse man-made climate change. "[Interviewer] Dr. Carlin, your paper A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; 'Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize'. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. [5]. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." "The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst."- Stupidape Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said, "Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays"s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change." Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. "The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997. One of the world"s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity"s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend."- Stupidape. First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing. "The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks." [7]. "Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. CEO"s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people " all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." - Stupidape Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry, {continued on http://pastebin.com...}
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. There is proof that climate change is all fake news started by Obama & crew. Those people who listen to that scientist are a jew 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. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.
Climate Change is a Hoax
I accept your challenge, though I will be coming from the perspective that climate change is the effect of us on the climate, not necessarily that the world is heating up.
Jail climate change deniers.
I'm against jailing Climate change deniers. It is a violation of free speech. I also think it sets a bad precedence. I would hate to see a 15 year old teenager go to jail for running off at the mouth. Nevertheless some people think we should jail climate change deniers. [0] What's next jailing flat Earth people and hate speech? [1] 0. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...
Anthropogenic climate change.
The task at hand is to "...contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent." From a common definition anthropogenic means relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature. Then, from common usage "climate change" means a harmful rise in global temperature. This could be a difficult task. The earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.1% trace gases including CO2.[1] Assume (for this paragraph only) that the small trace gas of CO2 (.04%) is the cause of global warming. The focus here will be upon sources of CO2 emissions both natural and manmade. The source emissions of CO2 would by a most rational people would be the cause of global warming. According to the IPCC 800 gigatons of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere from nature and man, annually.[2] Most rational people would consider a source that is most than 51% to be the cause of a problem. Some irrational people might try to argue that 33% would be a threshold for cause. Only, crazy people would state that something that is less than 5% could be consider the cause. That brings us to the percent of total CO2 emissions from mankind. That percent of CO2 emissions is 3.62% (29 from man of 800 total gigatons)! [2] This 3.62% can not be the cause of global warming. Now, questioning if CO2 is the cause of global warming. The alarmist side uses thresholds in parts per million (PPM). 400 PPM sounds scary and 0.04% is at an insanely small amount, both numbers are the same. Imagine, how quick the alarmists arguments would be dismissed if they said that 0.04% of atmospheric gases drove global climate. Then if combined with only 3.6% of annual CO2 emissions is from man, this is an incredibly small number that man is responsible for. Using just common sense methods, it becomes very hard to believe claims made by alarmists. Anyone attempting to say 3.6% is the cause of a problem would be laughed at. Especially, when the gas in question is exhaled by each one of us. The real reasons for climate change to be anthropogenic is political and financial. Just federal grants for climate change related projects is greater than $10 billion.[3] Scientists are just as financially motivated as anyone else. A climate scientist that is outside of the mainstream will not be funded. This creates incentives to stay in agreement with those in political power. Anthropogenic climate change as a political is prefect for oppressive progressive politicians. The solutions to this false issue are more governmental control over the daily lives of harmless people. The politicians have scientist by the purse strings, this ensures compliance. This debate is about causes not effects, thus positive and negative impacts will not be addressed. 1. http://climate.ncsu.edu... 2. http://www.climatechange2013.org... 3. http://www.gao.gov...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I accept. Man Made Climate Change does not exist or is so immeasurable in its current form as to be nonexistent. I ask that my opponent clearly define what is meant by Anthropogenic Global Climate Change as failing to do so will just create a moving goal post argument.
Anthropogenic climate change.
This is as close as the opponent comes to making an argument about cause: "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. ' But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.'[0]" That is the only statement that is close to an argument about cause. Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. Then appeals to emotion by asking people to think about their grandchildren, thus action to reduce CO2 must be taken, you know just in case. The question could also be asked, what if the consensus is wrong? The alarmists are advocating for billions of people to reduce their living standards to keep the planet from maybe warming a few degrees. Looking at the analogy mostly used to explain green house effect, which is a green house. A few years ago I was in an empty plastic sheet green house on a sunny but very cold day. The very thin sheet of clear plastic raised the inside temperature significantly, but the owner was planning on disassembling within a few days. My question to the owner was "would a second sheet of plastic make the green house warmer for longer?" The owner looked at me and said "it does not work that way". There would be an insulation effect if there is a gap between the two sheets of plastic. Yet, this false consensus is asking us to believe that more CO2 equals higher global temperatures. From an idea that more plastic does not make a green house warmer to a question would more CO2 make the Earth warmer. There is research that suggests once there is enough CO2 to have a green house effect more will not cause higher temperatures[1]. This is outside the narrative and must be stopped. Government's need a reason for people to be scared so that controls can be forced on everyone. In summary, consensus is not science! Climate change has become like a religion for those that believe. Western civilization learned centuries ago that state and religion is best separated. Thus, policy changes based on climate change consensus should not be enacted by governments. 1. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...
Debate.org
