args

Climate change is a fraud

Your point about surveys not asking if scientists considered the warming a problem is a fair one. However, You need not dig very deep to find examples of scientists who actively lobby for decreased greenhouse gas emissions to stop global warming and who describe it as a threat to the ecosystem. One example is a 2012 study by Paerl and Paul published in the journal Water Research found that climate change is likely to increase the frequency of cyanobacteria algal blooms in nutrient-rich waters; these blooms outcompete green algae and lead to low-oxygen levels in the water which kill fish and other aquatic life. Scientists also agree warming waters will dissolve more carbonic acid and lead to coral bleaching; this will destroy the Great Barrier Reef and other highly biodiverse marine ecosystems. If you're going to point to a lack of scientific consensus as evidence against climate change, Then the existing scientific consensus on plate tectonics should be evidence that it is true. If you believe all the world's scientists are wrong, Why are we even discussing what their position is? 2. My mention of nuclear weapons was not meant as an analogy; I was responding to your claim that humans cannot affect the Earth because their mass is so small. I gave an example which shows this is not the case. Given that over a million people have died of the coronavirus in less than a year, Which has never happened any of the other years humans have eaten the same thing, I don't see how you can claim diet is the true cause of viral disease. That said, You encounter the same problem as with plate tectonics; by ignoring the scientific consensus, You make this whole discussion a non-starter. The heat comes from the sun, But the greenhouse gases which trap the heat come from the burning of fossil fuels. Of course, If there were no sun, There would be no heat to trap, But that's a more extreme example than anything we see in the real world. 3. Water is the most potent greenhouse gas. Google "most potent greenhouse gas" to learn more. This means the more the globe warms, The more vapor enters the air, And the faster the warming goes. I'm glad to see you at least agreed with 4 (or didn't see it as objectionable enough to post a response to). 5. The first sentence of that quote you posted from NOAA clearly states that tree rings are proxies for temperature as well as precipitation. The two are closely related after all. How often do you have an unseasonable drought without it being hot? I certainly can't think of any times. Peer review as a process is designed to discourage fraud. In science, Academic integrity is everything. You can't lie about your findings or funding at all without destroying your reputation. It's a zero-tolerance system; one strike, You're out. Peer review weeds out corrupt scientists who cannot be trusted to do science honestly and bars them from further publication in reputable journals. Since science has the goal of improving human understanding of the universe, There is absolutely no reason for a scientist to invert their graphs or fudge their data without ulterior motives. What motives could possibly exist for faking climate change? The renewable sector is nowhere near as profitable as the fossil fuel sector; the latter would be a much better candidate for making money off of faulty data than the former, As we have seen. I look forward to this last round. If you have any final arguments you would like to hit me with, I will do my best to respond in my closing statement. Best of luck!

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

My opponent kept mentioning that I was making claims without backing them. I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none. My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here: 1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming. 2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle. https://www.newscientist.com...... 3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change. Of course my opponent clarified that the real debate is how much CO2 has an impact and whether it is miniscule. So they would say some measure that CO2 is a major player in changing the climate. That evidence is in trends in the atmosphere where lower layers are heating up and upper layers are not. This is a sign of CO2 causing the heating. On top of that, use my opponents point that if venus didn't have as much CO2 they would be significantly cooler. This proves that there is significant correlation between CO2 and climate. Then throw in how much CO2 humans throw into the atmosphere and what trends we are seeing now and conclude for yourself. This all rest the case that climate change is being effected by men. My opponent is probably going to argue that they need to see cold hard numbers, but this is not grounds to throw out the logic I have provided. Its impossible to measure with certainty exactly how much people are impacting. But the logic is there and evidence does point to CO2 being the main cause. Also, just in case my opponent isn't sure that CO2 is coming from people, I ask he or she look to this evidence again that shows the carbon cycle was working naturally until industrial CO2 overloaded it. https://www.newscientist.com... My opponent is always saying that the correlation is not strong. For this just keep in mind the physical signs we are seeing that it is CO2 such as the atmospheric patterns of heating showing that CO2 is the cause of this, not other signs. It doesn't get much more scientific. My opponent writes "Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today." http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...... Of course the graph they is of one place which is a spotlight fallacy. You can't point to one location. Also the largest difference in temperatures is in 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10,000 years. When my opponent quotes me saying the temperature todays is unnatural, they misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that extreme temperatures haven't occurred naturally. I meant that we would expect the dramatic changes to be much further apart. In the years before the recent era major changes in climate were rare and on somewhat of a cycle of hot to cold and back with even spacing of time. now we are seeing changes much more erratically and quickly. My opponent is arguing that man made climate change has not been proven with fool proof certainty and has turned this into an evidence debate. So far this debate has been a debate of clashing evidence that cancel out each-others claims. There has been a lot of research on each side that can just as reliably disprove the other. At this point it is time to look to logical claims and each side ought to put up some logic to the claim. I have given a clear thought process as to why men and women have had an impact on the climate. I would like to see logical sequential ideas that lead to the notion that climate change must be all natural. Thanks for this debate to this point so far.

Anthropogenic global climate change.

My opponent seems to be under the impression that just because a group of scientists believes something is true, it must be true, and listening to dissenting arguments is worthless. This is the pinnacle of group think, and science has fell victim to it before. Not too long ago, 1969, Ray David designed and performed an experiment to count the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun's Nuclear Fusion. Unfortunately, as Ray David put it, he had "socially unacceptable result." He had counted fewer than his experiment should have if the scientific consensus were right at the time. Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics mocked him and his results. No amount of refinement would ever find those missing neutrinos. In 2002, dying of Alzheimer's, he received the Nobel Prize for that work. Scientific Group Think had refused to update, or address the issue within the Standard Modle of physics because the Group said so. The transcripts from Nova's "The Ghost Particle" will be enlightening on the crimes of the political body of scientific consensus. [13] Scientific Consensus flies in the face of Philosophy. At its core, it's an ad populum argument. Believe this because these people believe it's true. It is in rebellion to a well-reasoned argument. It is not in dispute that CO2 is a part of the Greenhouse effect. Nor is man being a source of CO2. What is in dispute is whether or not the CO2 added has contributed to climate change at all. One complimentary claim to my Evaporation data is that the Greenhouse effect is at saturation, and adding more Greenhouse gasses suffer the law of diminishing returns resulting in null or negligible changes[14]. I'm not a fan of Greenhouse saturation because it is like my opponents CO2 argument. A lot of hypothesis and rhetoric, and rarely accompanied by data to support the claim. However, my figure 1 fully supports this claim. If we are to believe Mann, an expert in Climate Change, then if we warmed the Earth we would get more Evaporation. If CO2 were to blame, then we should have a correlation between CO2 and evaporation. I have no reason to doubt Mann's claim because anyone with an oven or dehydrator can test it. But if it's true then this is what the correlation between CO2 and Evaporation from 1980 to 2005 looks like. This is what a Zero Correlation looks like. Figure 3 The only conclusion is CO2 does not correlate to Evaporation, and since Evaporation is tied to heat, there was no warming for that period via CO2. Now after 2005 there is increases in evaporation, but that presents an issue. In 2011 in both Figure one and two, there is a definite spike implying an increase in temperature. However, since it's a spike, it goes back down and doesn't come back up until 2014. We've never decreased CO2 emissions, and if CO2 were the cause, this would be a contradiction. The conclusion remains the same that CO2 has little to do with the observed Climate Change. As for the claim of "other" supporting evidence such as temperature. Even using the weather station data from the GHCN dataset, it's impossible to replicate the temperature graphs used to support global warming. The reason for this is that the Station Data, and Satalight Data, are heavily dependent on weighting[15]. Now if the weighting was fully disclosed for public scrutiny perhaps a solid argument can be made for or against the temperature weights. Figure 4 is the closest anyone can get without having direct access to the weighting. Figure 4 Perhaps Global Warming Advocates need a lesson about relying on Blind Faith. [13] http://www.pbs.org... [14] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... [15] https://www.carbonbrief.org...

Anthropogenic global climate change.

Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1] Imagine Mann has made a mistake lead him to believe it acceptable to ostracize Nedialko T. Nikolov[5], a Scientist for the USDA Forestry Service, and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever[6]. Forcing dissenters into hiding with a pseudonym, exiling from their livelihood, and insisting just because a lot of a group thinks something true makes it the realm of Politics and not Natural Philosophy which Science "claims" to be. Man Made Climate Change will hang on its simplest of claims: Evaporation. Anecdotally it may seem Mann has a point about Evaporation. After all, California is in a multiyear drought. However, we have a saying in Statistical Research. "The plural of anecdote is not data." Every winter dissenters will cite the cold and snow as their Anecdote of choice against Climate Change, and alarmists will cite heat waves each summer. These Anecdotes are not data and are only confirmation bias in action. What is data? NOAA's collection of weather station data stored in the Global Historical Climatology Network is data. It's immune to a human saying "It's hot today, so it must be global warming," or "It's cold today, so global warming must be false." Imagine Mann forgot among all the data collected by weather station the Evaporation Rate is one of them. The Forgotten Soldier goes out to measure how much water evaporated for a pan, so we know how much water escapes our reservoirs will not be forgotten by me. I will now be providing data analysis anyone can replicate, and verify using the references in the acknowledgment section. I do not believe in hiding my data behind undisclosed weighting methodology, so I have even released the source code[4] for processing the GHCN dataset, and a more detailed analysis[7]. With a little knowledge of excel, any of these graphs can be replicated. Figure 1[7] presents an interesting problem. Apparently, evaporation has kicked into overdrive, but what's missing is any indication of an increase in evaporation before 2005. What did man do in 2005 the muscle car of the 80's did not? What did we stop doing after the peak in 2011 causing evaporation to go back down which we're not doing more of today? It's plane to see this isn't Man Made. Perhaps evaporation is not enough since there are only a couple of hundred stations at most collecting it in North America at any point in time. Precipitation is the result of Evaporation, and we've collected in far larger quantity for far longer. Figure 2[7] represents over a thousand stations collecting data over the last century. Figure 2 confirms everything in Figure 1 with a greater level of fidelity. It is safe to say from 1950 to 2005 there was no meaningful change in precipitation. There is a small alteration around 1990 expectedly since NOAA, and the NWS began upgrading to automated rain gathering around this time[8]. Figure 2 makes our questions even more pressing. Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation? It does answer one important issue. Why, if there was no warming, do glaciers appear smaller than at the early half of the century? It is important to understand a glacier is in a state of perpetual melting which allows it to slide. The size and location of a glacier are related to the temperature, and the amount of moister it receives as fuel. In the 30's there is an apparent drop in precipitation which would be the same as cutting off the fuel for a glacier. This begins an Ice-albedo feedback loop[9] making it appear glaciers are retreating from temperature when they are being starved for fuel. It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation. Because the timing is wrong for Climate Change, it is certainly not Man Made. Then what is the real cause? That is a separate debate, but some clues won't take too long. Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data. One of the simplest relations in climate science has socially inconvenient results for those who wish to raise the alarm on CO2. Acknowledgements: Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset - NOAA[2] Sceptics Global Warming Analyzer[4] [1] https://youtu.be... [2] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... [3] https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov... [4] https://sourceforge.net... [5] http://retractionwatch.com... [6] https://www.heartland.org... [7] https://drive.google.com... [8] http://www.weather.gov... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org... [10] https://www.nasa.gov... [11] https://science.nasa.gov... [12] http://spaceweather.com...

Resolved: Climate change is, on balance, anthropogenic in origin

Introduction This debate is about if Climate change is anthropomorphic (man made) in origin (the start). I am negating this. Note: this is not semantics,as these are the common understandings of the topic. To claim that changes in the climate from over 4000 years ago is caused by humans is quite ridiculous. Climate change has been happening for millions of years. Saying it has on balance, been caused by humans is false. http://lovecraftzine.com... http://www.nhm.ac.uk... We have only been around 200,000 years. To put that into perspective, we have only been on Earth for a minute compared to total Earth time. Conclusion It is ridiculous to suggest we are responsible for change happening millions of years ago

The big lie of climate change

Can I prove they are wrong? The obvious response is can you prove they are right? Kind of like believing in god, no one can prove it. All I know is that in the 70's it was global cooling, in the 90's global warming, and now because those Notsradamus like predictions have failed, or been proven inaccurate, they have changed the name of the religion to climate change. That is an inarguable fact. I plead you to be open minded and examine all sides of the issue, not just blindly throw your belief behind whoever makes the scariest predictions in order to gain your servitude which they see as their salvation, borne by your back. You need to think about your response to this as you are falling into line with the New World Order, which is exactly what Al Gore, and the United Nations anti American fear mongers want. Watch this, if it is not too traumatic.