Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewManmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0] Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat. 0. http://www.nytimes.com...
Climate change is real and caused by humans
I will be arguing that climate change is real and caused by humans, and is an urgent problem for the world at large. Good luck proving me wrong, since it's been proven right.
Recycling paper is a good way to fight climate change.
I. Rebuttal At this point, demand (part of point 1.) is essentially pointless, it does nothing for either of our arguments. What I was saying is that not everyone cares whether their paper is recycled or not. So they aren't always competing. Apparently you concede my argument that demand for new paper exceeds that of recycled, and adding to that, even recycled paper must be mixed in with some new paper/pulp. A. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "importance" section, there is a sourced claim that says: "Old growth forests also store large amounts of carbon gas above and below the ground. They collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases such as greenhouse gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change." Or in other words, when you cut a tree down, gases are released. Commercial forests become a zero sum for the climate, even if they do use up carbon dioxide, it will eventually be put back in the air. In essence, it means that trees that are planted, simply to be cut down, are worthless when it comes to preventing They collectively represent a significant pool of climate gases such as greenhouse gases. Continued liquidation of these forests may increase the risk of global climate change." Or in other words, when you cut a tree down, gases are released. Commercial forests become a zero sum for the climate, even if they do use up carbon dioxide, it will eventually be put back in the air. In essence, it means that trees that are planted, simply to be cut down, are worthless when it comes to preventing climate change. B. Indeed, I concede that trees use most of their carbon dioxide during growth. However, trees do continually use carbon dioxide, and since old trees are (or should) not be cut down, they will not eventually become a zero sum for climate change. C. Without a good root system, less photosynthesis will occur in the leaves (as there is less water), and there will be less regulation of carbon dioxide. 2. Biodiversity is important in preventing the climate change. Here in the benefits section, "other ecological services" http://en.wikipedia.org... It is stated that biodiversity plays a role in regulating the chemistry of the atmosphere and the water supply (which allows other plants to grow, more regulation, etc.), and it states that studies have shown that humans cannot artificially build ecosystems to replace it. Going on, you say that private ownership would not have erosion. Perhaps in the distant future, but not until the the root system has been well established (which can vary, but we'll be waiting at least half a century). As well, in many places where deforestation is occurring, there isn't a lot of private land ownership, so if these governments were to create the industry, they wouldn't be privately owned. D. I'll be honest with you, that's a pretty naive view of the worldwide ecosystem. Plants need animals, animals need plants. If all the animals died, what would pollinate the plants, what would spread the seeds, what would provide the natural fertilizer? Animals and plants are inter-related, if you take out one, you take out both. And all of the world's ecosystems are related in the same why, you take out one, it's going to hurt in other places too. A. http://news.bbc.co.uk...... That website says that the US, UK, and AUS are leading in per capita pollution. My point is that the developing world, as a whole, creates more pollution than the developed world. Your article does not tackle the total quantity issue, just per capita, and you're not considering the fact that there are more people living in developing countries than in developed ones. Per capita pollution is important, but in this case the toal is more important. You continue on about the wonders of tree farming, which I have already proven is zero sum for preventing climate change, it hurts none, yet it helps none. B. Countries are not going to magically get good crops from the developed world, developing countries have their own agricultural industries. And if they will do as you say, they will maximize their profit, and giving their engineered crops to developing nations is only going to decrease their profit. C. Sure, you'll plant trees over the dead ones, ignoring the other environmental costs which do indirectly contribute to climate change. And then you cut them down again, preventing those trees from being of any use in preventing climate change. Oh, and let's totally forget that these countries do not have commercial planting industries. D. I think it's quite obvious, if we recycle, we won't need to cut down as many trees. Even you support that, in your very first round. E. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" cited section, the massive amounts of these "virgin forests" cut down is revealed. It is highly related to the demand for paper products. By not recycling paper, these countries are submitting to a commercial forest plantation system, which does nothing to prevent climate change. F. There are private companies that handle recycling, you haven't provided any source that says all recycling is done by the government. G. Recycling saves 40% of the cost of making new paper, so it's an industry. It may be taking away from parts of the industry, but that's not a big deal, as I'll solidify later. Because recycling saves costs, and is efficient, it will be prefered in places that are poor and need efficiency (the developing world). II. My Final Case 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "importance" section, it is stated that old forests have a massive storage of green house gases. Cutting these trees down will further climate change. A. If old forests have these gases, then new trees would have a lesser amount. When they are cut down, the release of these gases nullifies any good they did to prevent climate change. The negative's argument that commercial forests are useful in preventing climate change is completely null. B. The only forests which can prevent climate change are those that stay rooted in the ground, permanently uncut. Commercial forests will always be cut down, and so will always be zero sum in preventing climate change. C. http://en.wikipedia.org... In the "Locations of remaining intact forests" section, the locations and percentages of old forests left is shown. As it states, the amount of land which these trees are constantly being cut down, in gigantic numbers. This is in part causing climate change. D. Recycling increases efficiency, the negative has made no attempt to challenge this specifically. Because recycling increases efficiency, we will be able to keep more trees rooted in the ground, and that is good for the environment. E. Around 70% of these remaining old forests are in developing countries, and could be protected with recycling. F. Protecting these trees not only directly benefits us by regulating green house gases, but their biodiversity and preventing of erosion indirectly helps prevent catastrophic change. 2. The negative's argument that commercial forests help prevent climate change is wrong, while the affirmative is right. A. From the earlier article, it is said that cutting down trees releases greenhouse gases. This will further climate change. This totally nullifies the negative point that commercial forests prevent climate change. They will constantly be cut down, constantly grown, and never contribute to slowing climate change. B. Since all the negative proposes for slowing climate change is the planting of commercial forests, it is clear that the negative does nothing to prevent climate change. C. I have not been proven wrong by the negative in that recycling increases efficiency. More efficiency means more trees left standing uncut, and less climate change. Voting To all the voters, I have proven that commercial forests is zero sum in preventing climate change. In order for trees to prevent climate change, they must stay there uncut. That's as simple as it gets. Recycling gives us more material, and allows us to keep more trees in place. Finally Great debate negative! I'm happy this didn't go to ad hitlerum, as internet debates so often do.
Man Made Climate Change Is Fake
My opponents first second and third points state, "My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming... humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle... If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change." To respond to this, I would like to bring up the argument that there is not that much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the Earths past. 15 gigatons sounds like a lot but it compared to the Earths past Co2 has been much higher. http://www.paulmacrae.com... In addition to this, historical evidence shows that Co2 has no correlation to temperature and most ice core data shows that higher temperature causes Co2 increase, not the other way around. My opponents next claim is that there are significant "fingerprints" caused by Co2 induced heating in the atmosphere. This is not a valid point because I am arguing that Co2 doesn't cause enough heat to significantly impact the atmosphere in the way my opponent is describing. This just brings us in a circle back to the argument that is if CO2 causes warming or not. My opponents next correlation is that since Venus has high Co2 concentrations and it is known that this is why venus is hot it would make sense that we would be seeing the same effects on Earth. My response to this is that Venus's atmosphere is 96% Co2. This is more then enough Co2 to have a significant impact on its atmosphere. This is drastically different from Earth where only about .03% of our atmosphere is Co2. I agree that humans are putting Co2 into the atmosphere My opponent then states that we are seeing rapid climate changes and that this is unnatural about the current climate change. While we are experiencing rapid rates of climate change, these changes are not unique to Earth. The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field and polar ice caps, Jupiter"s plasma clouds melding together in its atmosphere and becoming brighter (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. A dramatic shift that may be the cause of all these weird interplanetary changes is that the suns magnetic field is increasing in strength. Over the last 100 years, the suns magnetic field has increased by 230%. This increase attracts stardust from the surrounding area and this overflow of stardust may have something to do with this solar-system wide event. This evidence shows how Earth is not the only planet going through a rapid period of climate change. This indicates that something solar-system wide may be to blame for the recent fluctuations in temperature, not Co2. In addition to this, compared to the past 100,000 years, the rate of temperature increase does not seem to be any more rapid then it has been in the past. For example, look at this graph. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... In fact, looking at this graph shows that we are seeing even less fluctuations in temperature then we have in the past. This means that the rate of change and increase is unnatural because it is slow, not fast. I have now disproven all of your claims and look forward to your next argument. No, thank you for the debate :)
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I'm putting this under religion since people are talking faith based approaches to climate change. I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0] Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat. The scientific angle, inconvenient truth [1]. Impact, scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth. [1] Sources 0. http://www.nytimes.com... 1. http://www.imdb.com...
Anthropogenic climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source. 0. http://www.debate.org...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1] Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source. 0. http://www.debate.org... 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Anthropogenic climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.
Anthropogenic climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source. 0. http://www.debate.org...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic global climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1] Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Sources. 0. http://www.debate.org... 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Climate change is a fraud
Your point about surveys not asking if scientists considered the warming a problem is a fair one. However, 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. One example is a 2012 study by Paerl and Paul published in the journal Water Research found that climate change is likely to increase the frequency of cyanobacteria algal blooms in nutrient-rich waters; these blooms outcompete green algae and lead to low-oxygen levels in the water which kill fish and other aquatic life. Scientists also agree warming waters will dissolve more carbonic acid and lead to coral bleaching; this will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and other highly biodiverse marine ecosystems. If you're going to point to a lack of scientific consensus as evidence against climate change, Then the existing scientific consensus on plate tectonics should be evidence that it is true. If you believe all the world's scientists are wrong, Why are we even discussing what their position is? 2. 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. Given that over a million people have died of the coronavirus 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. That said, You encounter the same problem as with plate tectonics; by ignoring the scientific consensus, You make this whole discussion a non-starter. 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. 3. 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. I'm glad to see you at least agreed with 4 (or didn't see it as objectionable enough to post a response to). 5. The first sentence of that quote you posted from NOAA clearly states that tree rings are proxies for temperature as well as precipitation. The two are closely related after all. How often do you have an unseasonable drought without it being hot? I certainly can't think of any times. Peer review as a process is designed to discourage fraud. In science, Academic integrity is everything. You can't lie about your findings or funding at all without destroying your reputation. It's a zero-tolerance system; one strike, You're out. Peer review weeds out corrupt scientists who cannot be trusted to do science honestly and bars them from further publication in reputable journals. Since science has the goal of improving human understanding of the universe, There is absolutely no reason for a scientist to invert their graphs or fudge their data without ulterior motives. What motives could possibly exist for faking climate change? The renewable sector is nowhere near as profitable as the fossil fuel sector; the latter would be a much better candidate for making money off of faulty data than the former, As we have seen. I look forward to this last round. If you have any final arguments you would like to hit me with, I will do my best to respond in my closing statement. Best of luck!
Man Made Climate Change Is Fake
My opponent kept mentioning that I was making claims without backing them. I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change. Of course my opponent clarified that the real debate is how much CO2 has an impact and whether it is miniscule. So they would say some measure that CO2 is a major player in changing the climate. That evidence is in trends in the atmosphere where lower layers are heating up and upper layers are not. This is a sign of CO2 causing the heating. On top of that, use my opponents point that if venus didn't have as much CO2 they would be significantly cooler. This proves that there is significant correlation between CO2 and climate. Then throw in how much CO2 humans throw into the atmosphere and what trends we are seeing now and conclude for yourself. This all rest the case that climate change is being effected by men. My opponent is probably going to argue that they need to see cold hard numbers, but this is not grounds to throw out the logic I have provided. Its impossible to measure with certainty exactly how much people are impacting. But the logic is there and evidence does point to CO2 being the main cause. Also, just in case my opponent isn't sure that CO2 is coming from people, I ask he or she look to this evidence again that shows the carbon cycle was working naturally until industrial CO2 overloaded it. https://www.newscientist.com... My opponent is always saying that the correlation is not strong. For this just keep in mind the physical signs we are seeing that it is CO2 such as the atmospheric patterns of heating showing that CO2 is the cause of this, not other signs. It doesn't get much more scientific. My opponent writes "Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today." http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...... Of course the graph they is of one place which is a spotlight fallacy. You can't point to one location. Also the largest difference in temperatures is in 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10,000 years. When my opponent quotes me saying the temperature todays is unnatural, they misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that extreme temperatures haven't occurred naturally. I meant that we would expect the dramatic changes to be much further apart. In the years before the recent era major changes in climate were rare and on somewhat of a cycle of hot to cold and back with even spacing of time. now we are seeing changes much more erratically and quickly. My opponent is arguing that man made climate change has not been proven with fool proof certainty and has turned this into an evidence debate. So far this debate has been a debate of clashing evidence that cancel out each-others claims. There has been a lot of research on each side that can just as reliably disprove the other. At this point it is time to look to logical claims and each side ought to put up some logic to the claim. I have given a clear thought process as to why men and women have had an impact on the climate. I would like to see logical sequential ideas that lead to the notion that climate change must be all natural. Thanks for this debate to this point so far.
Anthropogenic global climate change.
My opponent seems to be under the impression that just because a group of scientists believes something is true, it must be true, and listening to dissenting arguments is worthless. This is the pinnacle of group think, and science has fell victim to it before. Not too long ago, 1969, Ray David designed and performed an experiment to count the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun's Nuclear Fusion. Unfortunately, as Ray David put it, he had "socially unacceptable result." He had counted fewer than his experiment should have if the scientific consensus were right at the time. Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics mocked him and his results. No amount of refinement would ever find those missing neutrinos. In 2002, dying of Alzheimer's, he received the Nobel Prize for that work. Scientific Group Think had refused to update, or address the issue within the Standard Modle of physics because the Group said so. The transcripts from Nova's "The Ghost Particle" will be enlightening on the crimes of the political body of scientific consensus. [13] Scientific Consensus flies in the face of Philosophy. At its core, it's an ad populum argument. Believe this because these people believe it's true. It is in rebellion to a well-reasoned argument. It is not in dispute that CO2 is a part of the Greenhouse effect. Nor is man being a source of CO2. What is in dispute is whether or not the CO2 added has contributed to climate change at all. One complimentary claim to my Evaporation data is that the Greenhouse effect is at saturation, and adding more Greenhouse gasses suffer the law of diminishing returns resulting in null or negligible changes[14]. I'm not a fan of Greenhouse saturation because it is like my opponents CO2 argument. A lot of hypothesis and rhetoric, and rarely accompanied by data to support the claim. However, my figure 1 fully supports this claim. If we are to believe Mann, an expert in Climate Change, then if we warmed the Earth we would get more Evaporation. If CO2 were to blame, then we should have a correlation between CO2 and evaporation. I have no reason to doubt Mann's claim because anyone with an oven or dehydrator can test it. But if it's true then this is what the correlation between CO2 and Evaporation from 1980 to 2005 looks like. This is what a Zero Correlation looks like. Figure 3 The only conclusion is CO2 does not correlate to Evaporation, and since Evaporation is tied to heat, there was no warming for that period via CO2. Now after 2005 there is increases in evaporation, but that presents an issue. In 2011 in both Figure one and two, there is a definite spike implying an increase in temperature. However, since it's a spike, it goes back down and doesn't come back up until 2014. We've never decreased CO2 emissions, and if CO2 were the cause, this would be a contradiction. The conclusion remains the same that CO2 has little to do with the observed Climate Change. As for the claim of "other" supporting evidence such as temperature. Even using the weather station data from the GHCN dataset, it's impossible to replicate the temperature graphs used to support global warming. The reason for this is that the Station Data, and Satalight Data, are heavily dependent on weighting[15]. Now if the weighting was fully disclosed for public scrutiny perhaps a solid argument can be made for or against the temperature weights. Figure 4 is the closest anyone can get without having direct access to the weighting. Figure 4 Perhaps Global Warming Advocates need a lesson about relying on Blind Faith. [13] http://www.pbs.org... [14] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... [15] https://www.carbonbrief.org...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1] Imagine Mann has made a mistake lead him to believe it acceptable to ostracize Nedialko T. Nikolov[5], a Scientist for the USDA Forestry Service, and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever[6]. Forcing dissenters into hiding with a pseudonym, exiling from their livelihood, and insisting just because a lot of a group thinks something true makes it the realm of Politics and not Natural Philosophy which Science "claims" to be. Man Made Climate Change will hang on its simplest of claims: Evaporation. Anecdotally it may seem Mann has a point about Evaporation. After all, California is in a multiyear drought. However, we have a saying in Statistical Research. "The plural of anecdote is not data." Every winter dissenters will cite the cold and snow as their Anecdote of choice against Climate Change, and alarmists will cite heat waves each summer. These Anecdotes are not data and are only confirmation bias in action. What is data? NOAA's collection of weather station data stored in the Global Historical Climatology Network is data. It's immune to a human saying "It's hot today, so it must be global warming," or "It's cold today, so global warming must be false." Imagine Mann forgot among all the data collected by weather station the Evaporation Rate is one of them. The Forgotten Soldier goes out to measure how much water evaporated for a pan, so we know how much water escapes our reservoirs will not be forgotten by me. I will now be providing data analysis anyone can replicate, and verify using the references in the acknowledgment section. I do not believe in hiding my data behind undisclosed weighting methodology, so I have even released the source code[4] for processing the GHCN dataset, and a more detailed analysis[7]. With a little knowledge of excel, any of these graphs can be replicated. Figure 1[7] presents an interesting problem. Apparently, evaporation has kicked into overdrive, but what's missing is any indication of an increase in evaporation before 2005. What did man do in 2005 the muscle car of the 80's did not? What did we stop doing after the peak in 2011 causing evaporation to go back down which we're not doing more of today? It's plane to see this isn't Man Made. Perhaps evaporation is not enough since there are only a couple of hundred stations at most collecting it in North America at any point in time. Precipitation is the result of Evaporation, and we've collected in far larger quantity for far longer. Figure 2[7] represents over a thousand stations collecting data over the last century. Figure 2 confirms everything in Figure 1 with a greater level of fidelity. It is safe to say from 1950 to 2005 there was no meaningful change in precipitation. There is a small alteration around 1990 expectedly since NOAA, and the NWS began upgrading to automated rain gathering around this time[8]. Figure 2 makes our questions even more pressing. Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation? It does answer one important issue. Why, if there was no warming, do glaciers appear smaller than at the early half of the century? It is important to understand a glacier is in a state of perpetual melting which allows it to slide. The size and location of a glacier are related to the temperature, and the amount of moister it receives as fuel. In the 30's there is an apparent drop in precipitation which would be the same as cutting off the fuel for a glacier. This begins an Ice-albedo feedback loop[9] making it appear glaciers are retreating from temperature when they are being starved for fuel. It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation. Because the timing is wrong for Climate Change, it is certainly not Man Made. Then what is the real cause? That is a separate debate, but some clues won't take too long. Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data. One of the simplest relations in climate science has socially inconvenient results for those who wish to raise the alarm on CO2. Acknowledgements: Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset - NOAA[2] Sceptics Global Warming Analyzer[4] [1] https://youtu.be... [2] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov... [4] https://sourceforge.net... [5] http://retractionwatch.com... [6] https://www.heartland.org... [7] https://drive.google.com... [8] http://www.weather.gov... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org... [10] https://www.nasa.gov... [11] https://science.nasa.gov... [12] http://spaceweather.com...
Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin
Introduction This debate is about if Climate change is anthropomorphic (man made) in origin (the start). I am negating this. Note: this is not semantics,as these are the common understandings of the topic. To claim that changes in the climate from over 4000 years ago is caused by humans is quite ridiculous. Climate change has been happening for millions of years. Saying it has on balance, been caused by humans is false. http://lovecraftzine.com... http://www.nhm.ac.uk... We have only been around 200,000 years. To put that into perspective, we have only been on Earth for a minute compared to total Earth time. Conclusion It is ridiculous to suggest we are responsible for change happening millions of years ago
The big lie of climate change
Can I prove they are wrong? The obvious response is can you prove they are right? Kind of like believing in god, no one can prove it. All I know is that in the 70's it was global cooling, in the 90's global warming, and now because those Notsradamus like predictions have failed, or been proven inaccurate, they have changed the name of the religion to climate change. That is an inarguable fact. I plead you to be open minded and examine all sides of the issue, not just blindly throw your belief behind whoever makes the scariest predictions in order to gain your servitude which they see as their salvation, borne by your back. You need to think about your response to this as you are falling into line with the New World Order, which is exactly what Al Gore, and the United Nations anti American fear mongers want. Watch this, if it is not too traumatic.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Thank you for posting this debate, I hope to be a worthy opponent!!!! Your argument is based on the pope's opinion as well as a scientific documentary My argument will be based on historical evidence as well as current scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Global Climate Change First I'd like to clarify that Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same theory with a different name and I will treat them as such. First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or Warming) Thus the theory of Global Climate Change (warming) is - a change in global climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onward and attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. I'd like to give a more simplified version of the above statement by giving this general statement released by the IPCC on what Climate Change is "Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change." Next, I'd like to refute my opponent's arguments Argument 1) Pope Francis recognizes climate change and he "Knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat" My Response: Pope Francis has no college degree in science (he does have a "titulo" as a chemical technician, which is not a college degree) and either way he is not a climatologist and his opinion does not count as an expert's opinion and his opinion is on par with the opinion of world leaders and celebrities... Essentially, his opinion on climate change is just as important as the opinion of Vladimir Putin's, neither count as an expert, but their opinion's count as a World Leader's opinion. Argument 2) An Inconvenient Truth My Response: I will watch the entirety of this movie so I can refute the movie in my next argument Now I will give my basic arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid During World War II, U.S. oil production increased by 3 billion barrels annually during the war. Both the Allies and the Axis used incredible amounts of oil and the best scientific data available, which is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shows that carbon dioxide levels literally "flat-lined" during the decade between 1940 and 1950 staying at 311.3 PPM and actually going down between 1941 and 1945, (the period that the US was in the war) [1] So, how did burning another 12+ billion barrels of oil not increase CO2???? Because, there is no direct link between oil usage and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Of course CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of oil, but that CO2 has had little to no affect on atmospheric CO2 as seen in my example above. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... According to the UAH and RSS climate research satellites there had been no warming between the late 90's and 2015 in fact 2014, was only .01 degrees hotter than 2005, and 2013 was only .02 degrees warmer than 2005. The conclusion from the analysis of the data is that while there has been a .05 degree warming trend since 2002, according to researchers that is "statistically insignificant" [2] The small upward trend from 1978 to 2015 is .2 degrees Celsius and is once again classifiable as statistically insignificant and is not proof of any man made global warming, in fact the lack of a significant upward trend shows not only that global warming predictions on climate and temperatures have been well off, but that there may not be any man made global warming at all. (excuse the site on the chart, woodfortrees.org is not where I got the chart, the source I used for the chart is the one listed as source 2) 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory NASA satillites discovered that the antarctic sea ice had reached a new record high in 2012 and then again in 2014, in 2014 it set a record for the largest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history [3]. Global Warming theory dictates that the Ice caps would begin to melt at an alarming rate, but if that's the case then how come this has occurred. In fact Al Gore and many Global Warming theorists stated that the ice caps would be completley gone by 2013, when the exact opposite has occurred. The red line in the photo is the largest that the ice had ever been recorded at. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases look at both of the below charts, the first chart is CO2 and temperature data for the last 750 million years, each blue dot represents the temperature and CO2 levels. What you can see is that the dots are everywhere and seemingly when CO2 is raised the dots tend to be higher, but there are several dots (call them outliers if you wish) that even nearing 5000 PPM CO2 are still cooler than the average Earth Temperature. On top of this, why are there dots near the 1000 PPM range that are higher up on the anomaly range than the dots at 7000 PPM. The Second chart shows CO2 and Temperature from 1999 to 2014, what can be seen is a very, very small trend line which is again considered Statistically Insignificant, showing no proof of a global climate change. (specifically the trend is .00668, which is essentially 0 to statisticians) [4] s://s17.postimg.io...; alt="" /> s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> Both Charts show a lack of evidence with CO2 and Temperature, In fact, it could be said that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature Change. However IPCC's definition of Global Climate Change requires such a correlation and if such a correlation is not apparent than Climate Change theory is flawed and thus Global Climate Change would not exist. So, based on all 4 of my points I am in firm negation of the topic in which we are debating. Thank you for reading this argument and looking at my charts!!! I hope you understood it, and I can't to see your next round. I'd like to remind my opponent of his BoP, which because of him being the pro he must prove specifically that Man Made Climate change is real and a threat he must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, my BoP is not to disprove Climate Change but rather to cast a shadow of a doubt, similar to a court case the judges must not have ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he has won or they must give me the victory. Sources: [1]http://data.giss.nasa.gov... [2]http://dailycaller.com... [3]http://www.nasa.gov... [4]https://wattsupwiththat.com... In case the charts/pics dont show up... Here are each of the chars on an external link: 1: http://dailycaller.com... 2: http://www.nasa.gov... 3:https://s17.postimg.io... 4: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
The political science of climate change
Sorry, but your response is nothing more then repeating what I said which is no response at all in essence. The fact is that the IPCC has released junk data as gospel truth repeatedly, and therefore we have to look at who is funding them and what their motivation is. The philosophy of the elites like Soros, Gates, Strong and Gore is that the earth is overpopulated, and the basis behind that philosophy is that eugenics is the cure, either by taxation or by policies such as encouraging abortion. Could you try a little harder please, or do you just expect everyone to follow the 97% religion because they have endowed themselves with the ability to predict the future? The expert weather forecasters can't tell us if it will rain tomorrow with great accuracy, but we are expected to believe a small group of ideologues from the IPCC can predict something as complex as how the climate will change? Please.....
Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity
I accept this debate. I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it.
That Humans Are Causing Climate Change
My opponent has not made a single argument for his position or a refutation of my arguments. His entire argument in round 3 is a source war (when the debate revolves around the number of sources each debater can put forth). Not only does it not satisfy his burden of proof, it is no way to argue. In this argument, I will first consider his introductory points, then proceed to refute the relevant arguments he made from his first argument, and finally show how his source war does not prove his point, especially on scientific topics. My opponent has not shown how his arguments are relevant, as he hasn't addressed my arguments as to how they aren't relevant. Also, from the resolution and the arguments you have put forth, you have been arguing that humans have been a significant, if not the main cause of the modern global warming. I've been showing how they're not. Refutations Climate Models Climate models are far from perfect. In fact, they have consistently overestimated warming. "The computer models predict that the 20th century temperatures should have increased by 1.6 to 3.74 Celsius, while the actual observed 20th-century temperature increase was about 0.6 Celsius. A model that fails to history match is useless for predicting the future."[1] Here is a graph showing various climate model predictions to actual temperatures: "The IPCC models projected the global 17-year SST trend ending August 2011 at 0.15 C/decade, but the observed rise was only 0.02 C/decade... The quoted error on a single measurement is 0.05 C. The probability that the IPCC projections overstate the warming in greater than 90%." I could go on more about this, but since my opponent has provided no proof of the validity of climate models, this will suffice.[1] To conclude, here is a prediction made by a climate model: Built in cooling trend until at least 2024 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 - 0.15 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 " 0.5 General Conclusion " by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed.[2] Why should we believe the models that predict excessive warming instead of models that predict a decrease in temperatures. Water Vapor Feedback Once again, the predictions to not match up with the observations. The feedback predicts relative humidity to remain constant so that the atmosphere can hold more water vapor with increased temperatures. However, humidity has actually fallen. This doesn't only negate the supposed positive feedback, but if the decrease is large enough, it may actually become a negative feedback. Here is a graph showing relative humidity over the last 60 years: "This shows that the actual water vapor content in the upper troposphere has declined by 13.7% (best fit line) from 1948 to 2012 at the 400 mb pressure level. The climate models predict that humidity will increase in the upper troposphere, but the data shows a large decrease; just where water vapor changes have the greatest effect on global temperatures."[1] Ocean Acidification Actually, claims of ocean acidification have been greatly exaggerated and misinterpreted. The mean drop in pH levels as a result of CO2 increases is around 0.3, but the sea can experience changes of almost 1.4 in as little as just a day. "On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.""At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico"s easternmost state, on the Yucat"n Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs.""Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that 'Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3"0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.'"[3][4] This is the paper's hypothesis: "This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions"[3][4] The Consensus This argument has employed by pro in both his first argument as an argument, and in this round to support his position. However, both instances commit both a fallacy and a gross inaccuracy. First, the fallacy. Science does not work by consensus. The number of researchers or organizations has little bearing on whether what they believe is actually true. Michael Crichton has said, "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." My opponent has said that petroleum companies supporting climate change deniers is a conflict of interest, but so are governmental organizations, because legislators want them to provide information that will support the legislation will support. Politics in science hardly makes for objective conclusions.[1] Even so, the consensus doesn't even exist in the first place. Over 31,000 scientists (with at least a Bachelors' degree in relevant fields) have signed a petition saying that global warming is not anthropogenic. The Heartland Institute has conducted an international survey of 530 climate scientists in 2003. The survey asked if the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds of the scientists surveyed (65.9 percent) disagreed with the statement, with nearly half (45.7 percent) scoring it with a 1 or 2, indicating strong disagreement. Only 10.9 percent scored it with a 6 or 7, indicating strong agreement. Most of the organizations my opponent lists are governmental, meaning that they have that conflict of interest I mentioned earlier.[5][6] The graphs my opponent provides are either irrelevant, are refuted by my argument against the consensus above, or show a rough correlation between CO2 and temperature that I have already shown to not exist. It is also relevant to note that the r^2 correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last century is only 0.44, which is considered poor.[7] Also, as for the other greenhouse gases, my opponent has not argued for them specifically, concentrating on CO2 in his arguments. Regardless, I will simply refer to my fourth argument in the last round on greenhouse gas absorption. Methane has an absorption band (at 8 micrometres) that largely overlaps with water vapor, so an increase in methane has little effect on temperature. In addition to methane, the wavelengths of light that nitrous oxide absorb largely overlap with that of water vapor, so an increase in nitrous oxide also has little effect on temperature. Those are the main greenhouse gases. I will address these more if my opponent considers them any more than he has.[1] Conclusion My opponent's entire argument in this round is a fallacious attempt to make his position seem valid when he can't refute the arguments I made in the first round. Again, science does not work by consensus, and even so, there really is no "consensus". Pro has never gotten near satisfying his BoP that humans are causing climate change. Sources [1]: http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: http://wattsupwiththat.com... [3]: http://www.plosone.org... [4]: http://wattsupwiththat.com... [5]: http://www.petitionproject.org... [6]: http://heartland.org... [7]: http://wattsupwiththat.com...
Debate.org
