args

Climate change is a fraud

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

Climate Change is a Hoax

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

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

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

Human caused climate change is nonsense

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

Climate Change Exists

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

Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

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