args

CON

• CON

  Wait..... so your pro for climate change, or yo agree...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  Wait..... so your pro for climate change, or yo agree with it and your now against it? The title says "Climate Change," and your for it and now you changed your mind.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change/5/
  • score

    BM25 score: 36.54

    climate: 21.49

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 8.68 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 15.06

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 4.67 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)
• CON

  Structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Attack...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change

  I will argue that climate change is not man made. The pro will argue that climate change is man made. Structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Attack Opponent's Arguments R4: Defend R2 Arguments NO NEW ARGUEMENTS Must use sources in arguments. Also, Stupidape please don't accept this challenge. I want more people to be involved in this debate, not just you.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 35.73

    climate: 20.96

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.77

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 4.38 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change

  A study by the biology cabinet shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature [1]. "On this assessment, the evidence points to a current natural climate change which happens sequentially in two main climate periods, icehouse and warmhouse." Another study was found on the Vostok ice cores, which show temperature records going back over 400,000 years. Data from the ice cores reveal an 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature [2], meaning CO2 changes came AFTER temperature. If climate change was man made, then temperature would lag behind CO2, but the opposite happens, which proves that CO2 cannot influence temperature. The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to about the same level whenever it rose significantly, which shows that it is a constant cycle and not affected by human activities. The same can be said about the CO2 levels. Manipulation and False Activism Pollutes the Climate Change Debate 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. [3]. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate" [4]. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." [4]. The government as well as a variety of foundations donate billions of dollars to scientists to prove global warming is man made and to groups that put a megaphone to the global warming agenda. [5] "the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for green energy."- Forbes A report by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works shows a "billionaire's club" that directs funding to leftist environmental activism groups and policy makers, while also getting grants from the government. [5] "Under President Obama, EPA has given more than $27 million in taxpayer-funded grants to major environmental groups. Notably, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund " two key activists groups with significant ties to senior EPA officials " have collected more than $1 million in funding each." Finally, Former Vice President Al Gore made a famous movie called "An Inconvenient Truth" about the theory of man made global warming and its effects. However, there were eleven significant errors in his movie, coming from Gore trying to exaggerate in attempt to scare people into believing his political agenda. So what could be the cause of the global warming? I believe the sun is the one responsible, as correlations between the sun and the Earth's temperature have been found when studying temperature and sun levels from 1880-1980 [11], and 1980-2006 [12]. This could also explain why other planets in our solar system are warming, as all the planets rely on the Sun. But at the end of the day, the warming is NOT caused by CO2. Sources [1]-http://www.biocab.org...... [2]-http://joannenova.com.au...... and also http://cdiac.ornl.gov...... [3]-https://wikileaks.org...... [4]-http://pastebin.com...... (Screen shots of emails)* and also http://www.justfacts.com...... [5]-http://www.nationalreview.com...... http://www.forbes.com...... http://joannenova.com.au... https://www.epw.senate.gov... [6]-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...... [7]-http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...... [8]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com...... [9]-http://climate.nasa.gov...... [10]-http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com...... [11]-http://www.tmgnow.com...... [12]-http://www.biocab.org...... *The emails were only available from downloading, and taking screen shots of the emails are the easiest way to show the emails.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change/6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 34.93

    climate: 20.69

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.24

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 3.84 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.49)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  Climate change clearly does not exist, here are reasons...

  Show full argument

  Climate Change Exists

  Climate change clearly does not exist, here are reasons why: (1) Exhaling Carbon Dioxide is no clear threat to our climate, we just breathe it out, our cars do it too (2) It is a conspiracy (3) There are no sources to back your statement up Here are my sources on how "Climate Change" doesn't exist: (1) http://www.globalclimatescam.com... (2) http://www.newsmax.com... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org... These 3 sources tell you that climate change is fake, first one tells you the top 10 reasons why climate change does not exist, the second, facts about this "global warming" hoax; And finally, The third source tells you the entire conspiracy that "Climate Change exists"

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Exists/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 34.74

    climate: 20.69

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.28 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.94)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 14.05

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.87 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.89)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
• CON

  This from a strong proponent of the theory. ... The...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  The theory that CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming is based upon computer models that were derived under errant assumptions. The models have completely failed to predict the observed changes in climate. If CO2 was a significant cause of global warming, and CO2 theorists were correct that nothing else is presently affecting climate, then the predictions should have inescapably fallen into line. Over a period when the earth was supposed to warm by 5 degrees, it actually cooled by 3 degrees. In the history of the earth, the climate has warmed and cooled with apparent complete independence of CO2 levels. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were twelve times higher than at present. In the period of the Holocene Optimum, about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than CO2 models predict the earth will become in the future, but there was no human-produced CO2 to be blamed. The Holocene optimum was a time of human prosperity, and the polar bears paddled through it quite nicely. I presented scientific references in support of every one of these claims. Pro has not rebutted a single one of these assertions. He completely ignored most of them. Instead he focused on (1) asserting that the existence of the IPCC report proves a consensus among scientists, and that a consensus established scientific fact. He also (2) impugned the integrity of scientists who did not accept CO2 theory, claiming that the had all been bought off by the oil companies. Finally, he argued (3) that the climate on Venus proved that CO2 was a significant determinant of climate on present day earth. The IPCC Report The IPCC Report exists, however there is no evidence that it represents a consensus among climate scientists, or, more importantly that it represents the overwhelming consensus that Pro claims. I claimed that the IPCC was a political organization with only 30% of the members being actual climate scientists, that the report conclusions were written by a small number of people who required authors of individual sections to support their conclusions, that report was not subject to peer review, and that the contributing scientists were not allowed to vote on the accuracy of the report. Pro did not rebut a single one my claims; he only claimed that those criticisms were inconclusive. I provided reference to the book by Michaels on the IPCC process, the statements of John Christy (a lead author of the IPCC report), and the statement of Landsea, the hurricane expert who resigned in protest when the IPCC central committee changed his conclusion that hurricane activity was unrelated to CO2. Pro provided no contrary evidence. Climate change was recently debated by William Schlesinger and John Christy, both qualified climate scientists. http://www.johnlocke.org... Schlesinger claimed the IPCC report showed the kind of consensus Pro also claimed. Christy told the audience that as a lead author he knew it was political. After the debate, a question from the audience asked Schlesinger what percentage of the IPCC was composed of climate scientists. Schlesinger replied that there were many aspects to the science and that he didn't know for sure, but that "perhaps 20% had something to do with climate." This from a strong proponent of the theory. (Debate fans might find the whole debate worth watching. I think Christy won handily, and so did the audience.) The Integrity of Dissent Pro made the claim that the oil industry sponsored most of the research contradicting CO2 theory. I pointed out that NASA alone poured more that a hundred times Exxon's measly $1.6 million in the quest to prove CO2 theory. Counting all the sponsorship on both sides, the weight of sponsorship is undoubtedly many hundreds of times in favor of supporting CO2 theory. So I asked how it could be that opponents were easily corrupted, while proponents were immune. Pro did not respond beyond the implication that oil companies were evil. Beyond that I challenged Pro to explain how the peer review process for scientific journals allowed what Pro claimed to be bogus research to be published. Pro ignored my challenge and failed to provide any explanation as to how the peer review process was somehow corrupted. I think that scientists are subject to group think like others in society, but that the peer review process is fundamentally honest. Dissenting papers are published because they present data and analysis that stands up to scrutiny. Pro has no explanation that supports his theory of bogus science. The peer review process means that it makes no difference who sponsors research, the results stand on their own. Is Earth Like Venus? Pro originated the discussion of Venus, claiming that the temperature on Venus proved Earth's climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2 levels. I pointed out that 3500 times as much CO2 only produced a 150 degree rise, so it certainly didn't prove climate was sensitive to CO2. Pro responded that even though it wasn't sensitive overall, it might be sensitive at low levels. Yes, it might be, but is it? I presented a scientific paper that provided the physical basis for CO2 effects on earth, and then fit the actual data from the 20th century to the curve shape. The result showed that doubling CO2 on earth would produce less than a two degree temperature rise. In the detailed analysis, the curve on Venus would be different because (1) unlike Venus the dominant greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, and (2) the atmosphere on Venus is about 100 times as dense. One might expect Pro to respond with a scientific paper on the CO2 theory as applied to earth's atmosphere that derives a different result. He did not. Pro simply asserted he was correct. I have looked for such a paper and never found one either. This is consistent with my assertion that CO2 theory does not derive from any simple physical theory, but rather from tweaking multiplier coefficients in computer models. I also referenced climate scientists (Spencer et al) that tweaking is how CO2 theory is derived. Throughout the debate, Pro referenced dubious Wikipedia articles, blog posts, and popular press articles instead of articles written by climate scientists. I challenged Pro several time to reference scientists and to point out exactly where in his references I could find support for his claims. He did not respond to any challenge. --- Pro's asserts CO2 is "significant" if it justifies enacting cap and trade legislation. Since past warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the much warmer Holocene Optimum were prosperous times for humanity, by that criteria the resolution fails even if CO2 causes global warming in the amounts postulated by the latest IPCC report. Besides, cap and trade does not lower CO2 levels, so it is never justified. I would allow a lesser criteria for "significant," perhaps if half of global warming were due to CO2. If it were only half, that would be a devastating blow to the theory, since advocates claim there is no other source of climate change at present. If one looks at the observed climate data, it is unlikely that more than 10 percent is due to CO2. CO2 is increasing slowly and smoothly, but world temperatures are moving largely independently, with the last decade showing if anything a slight downward trend. If CO2 were to account for as much as half of climate change, the past decade would have shown a significant increase. The irradiance (heat output) of the sun also fails to explain climate change. Right now the best bet is that it changes in the sun's magnetosphere that drives climate. That tracks well with past and present climate. The Little Ice Age, for example, corresponded to a period of no sunspots. However, if that is not the significant factor in climate, then something unknown other than CO2, is. The resolution is negated.

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

    BM25 score: 34.32

    climate: 21.43

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 8.60 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 12.89

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 2.52 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
• CON

  Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  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. 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. "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. 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. "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 transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." 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. Sources: [8] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [10] https://www.epa.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 34.29

    climate: 20.49

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 9.05 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.89)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 13.80

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.62 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.79)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  Again, we don't know, but I have come to argue it is not....

  Show full argument

  Climate Change is man caused

  Climate change is quite complicated and requires more than two minds. Climate change is happening, but is it man caused? Again, we don't know, but I have come to argue it is not. There was never enough research done on the natural causes of climate change, so we just naturally assumed it was man caused. You see where I'm going with this. It is conditional on evidence. I thank you for the debate.

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

    BM25 score: 34.12

    climate: 20.22

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 13.91

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.74 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.84)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
• CON

  So if CO2 increases, say, 10%, then we ought to get...

  Show full argument

  Climate change

  This such a broad topic it will be difficult to debate, but we'll have a go at it. It is certainly an issue that deserves attention, so it's a good topic. I agree with the contention that global warming exists. The earth has been warming at the rate of about 0.19 deg/decade since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, well before human-produced CO2 could have been the cause. Climate change is the norm. The prior Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was declared green, was about as warm as the present. Before that, the Holocene Optimum, about 3-5000 years ago was not only warmer than now, it was warmer than the dire global warming predictions forecast. [2a] Polar bears survived. I deny the contention that human-produced CO2 is a significant factor, although I allow that it may be a marginal contributor. The alleged scientific consensus is not meaningful, because the the consensus is largely determined by non-scientists and by scientists whose expertise is outside of fields relevant to climatology. The IPCC conclusions are determined by a dozen or so political zealots who write the conclusions and then force the scientists in charge of individual chapters to rewrite to support the conclusion the elite has reached. Only about 30% of the IPCC are scientists, the rest are government bureaucrats. The IPCC report is not subject to peer review and the scientists who contribute are not allowed to vote on whether it is reflects the consensus view or not. http://nzclimatescience.net... http://thewashingtonpest.blogspot.com... The professional societies operate in much the same fashion. The AAAS has only a few climate scientists, and the endorsement of climate change is done by the political elite, not by the climate scientists. Not too many years ago, the consensus of relevant mental health professionals was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, and the learned societies officially endorsed that view. It was wrong. Similarly, the Steady State Theory of the universe was once the strong consensus view; that consensus didn't last. Recently, DOE Secretary Stephen Chu was asked by a Democrat if it was possible if global warming could possibly be "a hoax." Of course it isn't a hoax, because the people who believe in it are sincere. Chu himself endorses CO2 theory. Nonetheless, Chu was properly circumspect. He said (paraphrasing), "In science we most honor the dissenters who disprove the consensus." The highly publicized consensus in 1970 was that the earth was on the brink of a new ice age. The best estimates of the level of consensus I've seen are from Patrick Michaels, who worked on the IPCC reports, which can be combined with limited polling data. it's probably about 40% pro-CO2, 30% anti, and the rest "maybe." CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as Pro supposes. So if CO2 increases, say, 10%, then we ought to get something like 10% warming, right? No, that is not the way it works. A little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically. A straightforward physical model of the CO2 in the atmosphere shows that the increases in CO2 in the twentieth century would have a negligible direct effect on climate. To make the increases in CO2 have a significant effect, there has to be a multiplier that somehow magnifies the effect. There are many candidates for such a multiplier. For example, if somehow average cloud cover where reduced by a mere 2%, we would expect as much global warming as has been observed. It's no problem for guys with computers and hundreds of variables to tweak them to make the answer come out any way they want it to. The test as to whether they have it right is whether the models accurately predict what is observed. They do not. http://www.drroyspencer.com... There was a spike in temperatures in the mid to late 1990's. The models predicted a continual exponential rise in temperature. El Nino went away and temperatures subsided. Temperatures for the past decade have been about stable. If anything, they have decreased. http://www.drroyspencer.com... Atmospheric particulates were modeled to cause temperatures to decrease from 1930 to 1970, but that is no longer available to explain why temperatures are not increasing. Perhaps most telling, CO2 theory makes a strong prediction about the relative temperature rise in the lower, middle, and upper atmosphere and from pole to pole. The observations show the predictions to be wrong. [1a] Past climate change was probably due to solar activity, because there was insignificant human-produced CO2. Observations of the last few hundred years show solar effects correlate well with climate change. Unfortunately, solar activity turns out to need a multiplier just like CO2 theory. One explanation is that cosmic rays cause increased cloud formation, and the small changes in cloud formation produce the climate effects. This theory is not established, but there is a major test being conducted by CERN. Pro points to a feedback effect from CO2 being released from the ocean as the ocean is heated. This puts more CO2 in the air, which in turn causes more heating. The regenerative effect is such that once global warming starts, the world is guaranteed to end. But actually, there have been many instances of warming greater than the present, and the world did not end. The climate reversed and became colder despite the high CO2 levels. That means that whatever the contribution of CO2 to warming, there was something far greater that controlled climate, driving temperatures down despite CO2's best efforts to keep them up. The likely culprit is the Sun dominating climate. CO2 levels lag the rise and fall of temperatures by about 800 years. That implies that if multiplying effects of CO2 were significant, the earth could not have had temperature significant temperature changes in less than 800 years. Think in terms of an auto that has a 80 second lag in the accelerator. You floor the accelerator, and 80 seconds later you are up to 25 mph. With that kind of car, it isn't possible to get to 50 in just a few seconds. However, there are instances of dramatic climate change in around 50 years. The theory is therefore wrong. The Arctic Ice cap appears and disappears in roughly 60 year cycles. http://www.drroyspencer.com... The 60 year cycles track solar activity. Ships sailed across the Arctic Ocean in 1939, the last time the ice disappeared. Last winter was one of the coldest Arctic winters on record, with about a third of the ice refreezing. It appears the cycle has peaked and it heading colder. There is no sound evidence that weather is getting more violent due to global warming. [1c] In the last IPCC report, the executive committee demanded that the scientist in charge of the section on hurricanes attribute increase in hurricane activity to global warming. He refused and resigned in protest. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... The scientific evidence now points to solar activity as the cause of present global warming as well as past global warming. There are multiple solar effects, including direct solar irradiance, cosmic ray effect induced by changes in the Sun's magnetosphere, and long term variations in the earth tilt and orbit. There are seven or more solar cycles that correlate well with past and present climate change. CO2 theory claims that CO2 now dominates climate, but in fact temperatures have been stable for a decade despite CO2 rise. 1. Michaels, P. J., Shattered Consensus (a) p246-51 2. Singer, F, et al, Unstoppable Global Warming (a) p 66 (b) p 137 ff (c) p201-12

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

    BM25 score: 34.07

    climate: 20.61

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 7.78 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.62)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 13.46

    conclusion: 10.01 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
• CON

  In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source...

  Show full argument

  Anthropogenic climate change.

  Acknowledgement of opposing evidence I shall first bring up some evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change. One may wonder why I would do this when I am arguing against anthropogenic climate change, but it’s really simple: I do this in order to provide the opposing side some representation and then I will present my side to refute that side’s argument. That is the most logical way of debating, and if you ignore evidence when it is available to you, that is a cherry-picking fallacy. The main evidence of anthropogenic climate change, is the increased levels of CO2 emissions within the past couple of centuries. It is believed that irreversible effects are occurring now and into the future due to increased CO2 emissions, and that this CO2 emission increase is due to primarily human activity [1]. In fact, in this study, it is shown that if humans were to cut all CO2 emissions the CO2 in the atmosphere would linger still and still cause more warming even if it were all put to an end. [1] There are of course plenty of other studies that show this as well. Refuting the scientific consensus There is often stated that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real[2]. However, it is a fallacy to trust the words of authorities on the matter without considering the evidence. 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. In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it. 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. Reiterating previous debate points In a previous debate with the same user, it was established that 3.225% of all CO2 emissions are caused from humans by unnatural causes. [4] 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. 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 evidence” 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. 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]. If it was as simple as CO2 rises, and therefore temperature rises due to it, then the reverse should not be happening where temperature rises and then CO2 rises. It was also found that CO2 forcing effects on seasonal temperature to be inconclusive, particularly since CO2 emissions cause warming at first, but the warming causes more evaporation of water and thus more clouds and humidity, which lead to a cooling effect, the net effect is not much change in the overall temperature [5] Next, another study performed by G. V Chilingar et al found that “Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.” In another comprehensive study on global temperature rises by Patrick J. Michaels et al, it was concluded from “observations of atmospheric CO2 buildup and global CO2 emissions... that lead to exponential warming... is not based upon the reality of recent decades.” Many of the models scientists have come out with to show that CO2 rises cause exponential warming, are not reflective of what has actually been happening in the world, and the warming in the world is much more linear. 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 that show problems with anthropogenic 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, to problems with climate models, to what should have been expected to result from anthropogenic climate change not actually happening. [7] Due to all of these issues listed above in this category and the previous 3, it is difficult to believe the climate scientists who claim anthropogenic climate change is a reality, when, as far as I’m aware, they have not addressed the above issues outlined. Inconclusive results and the default position Because as mentioned before, that majority of the studies done into anthropogenic climate change resulted in inconclusive or neutral results, the default position should be that anthropogenic climate change does not exist. Just as believing a god doesn’t exist is the default position when there is not conclusive evidence for or against a god, or majority of the evidence is inconclusive or neutral, so would then the position on anthropogenic climate change have the default position of not believing in it. Sources: [1] http://www.pnas.org... [2] http://climate.nasa.gov... [3] http://iopscience.iop.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... [6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [7] https://skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./6/
  • score

    BM25 score: 34.06

    climate: 20.29

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.85 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.85)

    sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.16)

    change: 13.77

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.58 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.78)

    sourceText: 0.40 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.15)
• CON

  First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is a fraud

  I'll accept this challenge. First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic climate change or all climate change? If it is the former, As I suspect it is, I won't waste time explaining all the evidence that the globe is, In fact, Warming at an unprecedented rate and instead go straight into attribution. If, However, You don't think the globe is really warming at an unprecedented rate, I'm happy to go into the evidence for it. Moreover, "fraud" implies more than just the majority of scientists being wrong (i. E. Misinterpreting the evidence) but also that they are intentionally lying. This is a big claim given the number of scientists who support the concept of anthropogenic climate change and one that incurs its own burden of proof. See you some time in the next 72 hours.

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

    BM25 score: 34.05

    climate: 20.17

    conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 8.76 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 13.88

    conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 4.71 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.83)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)