args

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I'm sorry but you are the one who has dropped all the issues except the ozone layer. I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming I chose to play defense and only address the points you made, which were few. These included: Pope Francis's opinion (which I destroyed you on) Science says global warming is true (which you utterly failed to mention afterward and showed no evidence for) And trying to prove the ozone hole is man made. If this is the best you can do, I suggest you drop this topic, because you do a disservice to climate change activists. Plenty have given better arguments than yours. Thank you for your time.

Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

"From the invention of plastic, To the utilization of fossil fuels, To the catastrophic change in Climate conditions is all a naturally occurring process of the Earth's evolution" Evolution is biology and chemistry. Humans inventing plastic is not evolution. Moreover, If being a natural by-product of the Earth means you can't say "human did X", Then you acknowledging that "plastic never would have existed without humans" is in fact saying humans created plastic. You then try to link it with the fact that humans are from Earth so that you can say the Earth caused plastic - but you still needed that middle man fact, Right? Therefore, You CAN say humans cause climate change - just as you can say that humans made plastic. You try to go a step further by saying that if Humans are a byproduct of the Earth, Then the Earth caused climate change. However, You'd again need the middle man of "climate change as we know it wouldn't have happened without humans". And that statement is the exact same as saying "humans caused climate changed". "Science and Mathematics do not make mistakes. " Climate change isn't a mistake - it's the result of the actions taken. We are a byproduct of biology and chemistry, But our actions are taken with our evolutionary instincts and thought process which isn't scientific or mathematical. "Pardon me for utilizing the fish hook. " You failed completely. Your conclusion is NOT followed by your premise. Natural processes follow the laws of physics. These laws of physics gave birth to life on Earth. The life on Earth evolved with bodies and brains that kept them alive - not necessarily to understand the world and how their actions affect it. From this, You get climate changed caused by humans advancing technology and not thinking of the consequences. Your argument has failed completely.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Exists

Correlation plus a theory is not proof CO2 dominates climate My opponent noted temperature generally rising since 1900 and CO2 rising since 1900, and claims that because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it must be responsible for the rise. The error in that logic is that we do not know how much of the rise is due to CO2 and how much is due to other factors affecting climate. We could plot increasing consumption of charcoal in backyard barbecues, noted that burning charcoal heats the atmosphere, and then concluded that barbecuing causes global warming. The barbecue theory is defeated by showing that there isn't enough heat generated by the volume of charcoal consumed to have a significant warming effect. Similarly, Pro offers no analysis that shows CO2 to be even a significant cause. Pro has the burden to prove not only that CO2 dominated climate in the last century, but that it will dominate the next century despite all unknown factors affecting climate. Here is a reconstruction of CO2 and climate over the past 650 million years. [1. http://www.geocraft.com...] http://www.debate.org... Over geological time, clearly climate has been dominated by factors other than CO2. On the geological time scale, we are currently in an unusual period of low temperatures and low CO2. It a very complicated picture, proving that climate is far more than just CO2. Pro shows the CO2 data for the past 650,000 years.Temperature follows the same pattern, only CO2 follows temperature. The graphs are here [2. http://www.geocraft.com...] If the graphs are time aligned, the result is not that CO2 causes warming. Quite the opposite, CO2 rises about 800 years after temperature rises. Warming causes CO2 because warmer oceans cannot dissolve as much CO2. In 2013 the prestigious journal Nature published an up to date scientific reconstruction of climate for the past 2050 years. [3. http://www.nature.com...] It shows that over the period climate varied by about as much as the present warming, with both the Roman Period and the Medieval Warm Period warmer. It remains possible that CO2 is contributing significantly to current warming, but the natural variations are so large that CO2 might be inconsequential. Current climate science has no explanation for the major climate variations of the past 2000 years. That's why the discredited global warming hockey stick attempted to prove there were no past variations. Pro has the burden to prove CO2 dominates. I say it's unlikely CO2 dominates, but no one really knows. http://www.debate.org... Total sea ice is at record levels and CO2 can't explain why Pro argues that arctic ice is melting, that proves CO2 is the cause. Historically, Arctic ice melts when Antarctic ice increases in a cycle of 40 to 60 years called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO pattern fits the cooling period from the 40s to the 70s that CO2 cannot explain. [4. http://www.drroyspencer.com...] The Arctic was last clear around 1940. Global warming alarmist scientists warned that this time the Antarctic was melting as well, and they made the confident prediction in 2010 was that the Antarctic would be ice free by 2013. What actually happened is that the Antarctic reached record high levels of ice: “The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.” [5. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...] If CO2 warming dominates climate, it cannot be that it is overwhelmed by other factors like the PDO. But it is. CO2 theory cannot explain the pause in warming To accurately predict future climate, computer models must be proved to be reliable. We know the models did not predict ice formation in the Antarctic nor pre-1900 climate variations. In addition, global warming has essentially ceased since 1997, [6. http://wattsupwiththat.com...] so a check on the accuracy of climate models is how well this pause is predicted. Sscientists predicting CO2 crisis use many variations of computer models. The collections are called CMIP3 and CMIP5, with CMIP5 the very latest. ... Climate models cannot simulate past surface temperatures, precipitation or sea ice area. Those are basic components of Earth’s climate. … The concern about the latest slowdown in warming was addressed by a recent scientific study by Von Storch, et al. (2013) “ Can Climate Models Explain the Recent Stagnation in Global Warming? ” The one-word answer to the title question of their paper is, “No”. They stated: However, for the 15-year trend interval corresponding to the latest observation period 1998-2012, only 2% of the 62 CMIP5 and less than 1% of the 189 CMIP3 trend computations are as low as or lower than the observed trend. Applying the standard 5% statistical critical value, we conclude that the model projections are inconsistent with the recent observed global warming over the period 1998- 2012. [7. Tisdale, Bob (2013-09-23). Climate Models Fail (Kindle Locations 276-291)] The Von Storch paper is available free in draft format [8. http://www.mpimet.mpg.de...] There are a number of ocean oscillations in addition to the PDO. These are not accurately modelled in the computer simulations and likely account for the rapid warming before the current pause. The Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age correlate extremely well with sunspot activity, but no physical cause of the warming and cooling has been definitively linked to sunspots so there is nothing in the computer models representing the effects. It is not direct change in the solar radiation, because that varies too little to explain the large effect. Danish scientist Svensmark has proposed that changes in cosmic rays linked to variations in sunspots affect cloud cover by a cloud seeding mechanism, but CO2 scientists discount that, so nothing is in the computer models. [9. http://wattsupwiththat.com...] All of the climate change in the past century could be accounted for by less than a 3% change in cloud cover, but even with satellites cloud cover measurement is difficult. The cloud height is important as well as the density. We don't know future CO2 levels Everyone, crisis advocates and skeptics alike, agrees that whatever the CO2 sensitivity it is logarithmic. So if doubling CO2 produces a one degree rise, which is about the theoretical rise if there is nothing in the climate that magnifies the effect, then doubling it again would produce another degree of warming. An exponential rise in CO2 produces a linear rise in temperature. If we had a perfect model of CO2 effects on climate, we would still need to know how much CO2 is left to be produced and at what rate. Everyone agrees oil and coal are running out, but no one is sure how fast. But as supplies get scarce, prices rise and alternatives become economically viable. A technological breakthrough like a cheap, efficient battery would drop carbon consumption dramatically. It's another major unknown. A clarification of the resolution was agreed to in the debate comments so Pro must show that CO2 dominates climate in the past and future century. Pro has not made a convincing case that CO2 accounts for past climate change, nor that either computer models or carbon consumption assumptions are reliable enough to predict the future. He has the burden of proof.

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

The conditions of the debate are very confusing. It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in It sounds like it was written by a control freak who can't tolerate freedom of speech and democratic processes. Never-the-less I am will to take on somebody who doesn't understand basic science. Yep!, You heard me right. Any person who believes in climate change doesn't understand basic science and politics for that matter. Introducing Maurice Strong - The dirt bag climate change instigator. http://quadrant.org.au... https://steemit.com...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent accepts that his first argument is a correlation so there is no need to strengthen my argument there. My opponents second argument states, """When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.""" To disprove this I will do it line by line. Line 1: When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit This line is true but only in some cases. For example, the mini ice age, which we exited 1000 years ago, was not initiated by changes in the earths orbit. Line 2: This line is just wrong. The oceans do store Co2 but what is released when they warm is mostly water vapor, not Co2. This water vapor then causes more clouds which then cools the Earth. This is common knowledge among scientists because this is exactly how cosmic rays cause cooling. Line 3: Yes, rising temperature causes more Co2 to be released but by simply looking at ice core data we can see that this does not cause an infinite rise in temperature. The temperature then drops and rises again independent of the Co2 that was released from the previous rise. For an example, look at this graph: http://www.geocraft.com... My opponents next argument is just plain wrong. My opponent states, ""Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998. The myth of no warming since 1998 was based on the satellite record estimates of the temperature of the atmosphere. However, as discussed in the video below by Peter Sinclair, even that argument is no longer accurate. The satellites show warming since 1998 too." " To disprove this all you need to do is read the caption at the top of the graph below where it lists its source. http://4.bp.blogspot.com... As you can see, the graph was not based on temperature estimates but the "global mean temperature change..." I don't know where you got the idea that 2015, 2014, 2010, and 2005 were hotter than 1998 but from your sources it seems that this data is only true once you remove the El Nino. My question to you is why hasn't the Earth warmed since the El Nino. In the 20 years since the temperature maximum temperature doesn't increase at all. In addition to this, the El Nino just proves the fact that there are other influences in climate that influence temperature more then Co2 or enough to distort data. For my opponents next argument he states that my source is not credible. This is just not true. Just because the maker of the website is paid to research evidence against man made global warming does not immediately make all of his evidence untrue. My opponent does not provide any actual contrary evidence to debate this point but to satisfy their needs I will give a link to multiple graphs sourced from other websites showing the same thing. http://c3headlines.typepad.com... http://www.drroyspencer.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com... My opponents next argument is not relevant to man made climate change. My opponents next argument states, "Not every prediction in the Inconvenient Truth came true. Nevertheless polar bears are struggling and many ice caps are melting. [5] As for the polar bears this is due to hunting restrictions and bans. " I will cede this point to my opponent as it is a result of warming and not relevant to man causing the warming. I should not have brought it up and while I still have arguments to dispute it do not wish to argue this view any longer. As for why the documentary was manipulated, I do not wish to argue this any more either for the same reasons listed above nevertheless I will provide a short article to explain my first argument. I know that the article does not provide much info on the subject but if you really want to understand the argument then you need to research it yourself. http://www.newsmax.com... Nextl, to strengthen my point of the debate, I will argue that Earth is not the only planet warming. 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, Jupiter"s "white ovals" are disappearing and melding together in its atmosphere (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. As you can see from the long paragraph I have provided above, the entire Solar System seems to be warming or experiencing some sort of weird climate change patterns. This indicates more then just a global event. To conclude my argument, I will provide a graph of Co2 and Temperature over the long term that should, on its own, disprove entirely the idea of man-made climate change. http://www.paulmacrae.com...

Jail climate change deniers.

I reassert my strongest argument in r2. "Finally, and perhaps my strongest argument. Assume for a second that the deniers are wrong. Not much of an assumption. Jailing the deniers could backfire. Causing them to become martyrs per say. Holding back political Assume for a second that the deniers are wrong. Not much of an assumption. Jailing the deniers could backfire. Causing them to become martyrs per say. Holding back political change and giving the deniers a louder voice. Thanks for debating and being respectful. " stupidape Jailing the climate change deniers could backfire. Cause the deniers to become martyrs and more suspicion and doubt to be cast.

What is your opinion on climate change

I think climate change is a bad thing because it is warming the globe and it is destroying ice burges and is changing anamails habits like for example poler bears there homes are getting melted by the increasing temps and its bad because the poler bears are losing there homes. AND do you want to know why climate change is happening. Its because green house gases and fossil fuels and airshol fresheners. The bad cemaciles are going up and destroying this thing called the ozone layer. The ozone layer is like a layer around the earth pretecing us from the suns deadly rays and the stuff that goes into the air goes to the ozone layer and makes it weaker and that's why there is globe warming and climate change