args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

The greenhouse effect is a thing, and hypothetically it would raise temperatures. But adding more and more to our atmosphere does not infinitely raise the temperature, it only raises it to an extent. Yet again I see you have ignored the very important claim that we are coming out of a galatial period, which explains the warming trend, and everything you think it has caused. Also, few climate scientists actually worry where we are headed, those are environmental activists, corrupt politicians, and a few scientists hired specifically to prove it is man made. In most cases, you will see that studies that indicate a rapid change are botched, as seen in my 97% debate. And may I ask you some questions you are free to answer in the comments, what have you done. Are you yelling about a problem you are part of? Do you drive an electric car? Do you plant? Have you actually gone out as I have and contribute to a worthy solution? And what does population have anything to do with climate change? Also, may I end with an argument that I may have benifited from starting with. The only constant is change. When the media makes these claims, they leave so much out of the picture. As you have done with my arguments. They take one thing, leave out the rest, which makes it easy to destroy its foundation. If we actually see the whole picture, and know the problem for what it is, then we can come up with actual solutions that can make an actual change. Not just weak EPA political action. Thanks for reading.

Jail climate change deniers.

I'm against jailing Climate change deniers. It is a violation of free speech. I also think it sets a bad precedence. I would hate to see a 15 year old teenager go to jail for running off at the mouth. Nevertheless some people think we should jail climate change deniers. [0] What's next jailing flat Earth people and hate speech? [1] 0. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

In this round I will be refuting my opponent's arguments and I will be resupporting my own arguments My opponent stated "First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist." But what my opponent fails to realize is that quoting the pope is not an argument, an argument needs evidence, the quote from the Pope is not evidence of climate change, rather it is only a claim followed by my opponent's warrant. You can't just quote the pope and call it an argument, thus you have no first argument. The Pope's statement does not further your case (unless he was a climate scientist, then it would) So, because the pope is not a climate researcher I really don't even need to refute his statement but I have done so by showing that the Pope is not a climate scientist. In his first rebuttal my opponent stated that "science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases", but he shows no specific evidence of this occurring. Then my opponent quotes the EPA "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels" However, if this were true then how come the decade long decrease in CO2 was seen, even as fossil fuel combustion increased (In the US alone 3 billion more barrels were used per year). In fact, my opponent conceded that point when he said "Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain", so my opponent has conceded my first point. My opponent stated in rebuttal 2 "Argument two is cherry picking." But he shows no evidence of how it is cherry picking... Thus, this statement ought not to be considered, however I will prove how my second argument was not cherry picking... The definition of cherry picking is "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." [1] However, I have not cherry picked evidence because of the fact that I offered the statistical analysis of two major climate research satellites which have had their results peer reviewed by the scientific community and been found to be accurate. In fact, if I had cherry picked this evidence it would not show the .2 degree warming trend that it did... What is even more ironic is that my opponent goes on to say "El Nino was responsible for the height of the graph." But even I conceded that the warming trend was there, in fact my opponent just contradicted his entire case by calling the warming trend that was apparent on the graph; El Nino, a regional, natural phenomena, that has nothing to do with Global Climate Change. So, if El Nino caused the warming trend on the graph, then Global Warming is a hoax because all warming trends over the period of the graph can be explained by El Nino (He said it, I didn't). My opponent in rebuttal 3 stated "First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence." By definition if the phenomena is not experienced GLOBALLY, then GLOBAL Climate Change is not occurring [1] (simple definition 1) "Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass." If this is true then how come one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming said that the poles would be ice free by 2013 [2], Leon Penetta once said [while talking about Global Climate Change] "The melting of the Polar Ice Caps" [3]. There seems to be a consensus among scientists and Global Warming Theorists that the Ice caps will melt when Global Warming occurs. Then How did my opponent find contradictory evidence? He found such evidence because he quoted a man with 0 climate science experience. His sources 4,5, and 6 are written by Coby Beck "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." [4] So, any quote by him ought to be ignored because it offers no expert value or value of any sort. In fact, my opponent is not even quoting the credible science in some of Beck's blogs, my opponent is quoting Beck's opinions which hold no value. My opponent in his 4th rebuttal quotes the same man again... and his statement ought to be ignored but in another one of my opponent's contradictory statements, he says "temperature moved first [in relation to CO2]", but if this is true, then how come the IPCC said that CO2 caused temperature to move? Which one is it? Either way my opponent has contradicted Global Warming theory as we are debating it and has negated his own refutation. My opponent's graph is quite interesting. The graph appears to show a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, however there are several occasions of temperature and CO2 acting independently, one major example is 400k years before present when the temperature increased dramatically for a (relatively) short period while CO2 decreased, and then again around 380k years ago where temperature decreased dramatically while CO2 increased. So, my opponent's chart, however intriguing, shows once again, that temperature and CO2 act independently from one another. Now I will Strengthen my original cases 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 My opponent has conceded this point (see above for more details) 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record I have shown my opponent's rebuttal of this claim to be false, and his claim of a logical fallacy to be false, however I'd like to strengthen this point more. USCRN the largest and most advanced climate research network in the US has shown a decade long cooling trend. While the trend is statistically 0, it still shows no evidence of global warming. If the entire world is warming, (definition of Global Warming, see above) then how come the United States isn't? [5] s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="1005" height="551" /> Furthering my point, A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming. Again I posit the question, If the world is warming, then how come the US AND Britain (and the surrounding ocean) are not. [6] 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 Seeing as my opponent's refutation of this point was insufficient, I do not feel the need to strengthen this point. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases As I have refuted my opponent's statements about this point I'd like to point out that my opponent has neglected to mention both of my charts for this point, both of which show an obvious independence between CO2 and Temperature, even over the time span of millions of years of data. Judges, seeing as my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at this point in the debate you would be required to vote in favor of the Con. I look forward to reading my opponent's next argument, and I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this debate. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.cnsnews.com... [3] http://www.brainyquote.com... [4] http://grist.org... [5] https://wattsupwiththat.com... [6] http://www.newsmax.com...

Anthropogenic global climate change.

I accept. Man Made Climate Change does not exist or is so immeasurable in its current form as to be nonexistent. I ask that my opponent clearly define what is meant by Anthropogenic Global Climate Change as failing to do so will just create a moving goal post argument.

Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled. 2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC. http://joannenova.com.au... Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says. 3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion? (a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol (b) Oceans are rising? Really? I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling. 4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information. 5. Hockey stick fraud. This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. https://www.steynonline.com... 6. NOAA temperature fraud. https://realclimatescience.com...

Climate change is a fraud

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

Anthropogenic climate change.

This is as close as the opponent comes to making an argument about cause: "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. ' But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.'[0]" That is the only statement that is close to an argument about cause. Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. Then appeals to emotion by asking people to think about their grandchildren, thus action to reduce CO2 must be taken, you know just in case. The question could also be asked, what if the consensus is wrong? The alarmists are advocating for billions of people to reduce their living standards to keep the planet from maybe warming a few degrees. Looking at the analogy mostly used to explain green house effect, which is a green house. A few years ago I was in an empty plastic sheet green house on a sunny but very cold day. The very thin sheet of clear plastic raised the inside temperature significantly, but the owner was planning on disassembling within a few days. My question to the owner was "would a second sheet of plastic make the green house warmer for longer?" The owner looked at me and said "it does not work that way". There would be an insulation effect if there is a gap between the two sheets of plastic. Yet, this false consensus is asking us to believe that more CO2 equals higher global temperatures. From an idea that more plastic does not make a green house warmer to a question would more CO2 make the Earth warmer. There is research that suggests once there is enough CO2 to have a green house effect more will not cause higher temperatures[1]. This is outside the narrative and must be stopped. Government's need a reason for people to be scared so that controls can be forced on everyone. In summary, consensus is not science! Climate change has become like a religion for those that believe. Western civilization learned centuries ago that state and religion is best separated. Thus, policy changes based on climate change consensus should not be enacted by governments. 1. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...