args

The big lie of climate change

OK, so those are some mighty scary factoids, but they are not facts at all in reality because they are only statements designed to strike fear in gullible people in order to dismantle industrial civilization in favor of a much smaller population controlled by the elite. Climate change is Nostradamus science and uses those kind of statements to indoctrinate people such as yourself with the belief that humans are destroying the planet, and the only way to save it is to give up control and become subservient to the globalist elites, and by the way you must pay more so they can tell you what your place is on this planet. I encourage you to research both sides of the issue and not to blindly believe the lies that Agenda 21 capitalists would have you believe. CO2 is a trace gas and the plan to create planetary fear around it was hatched in the late 70's by a man named Maurice Strong. Do your research kiddo. The hockey stick is a lie, the climate has changed before, it will continue to change, and there is nothing man can do about it, but adapt, or capitulate to the lies and be adapted for the purposes of the elite globalists that hold all the wealth, the .0001%er's.

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

I said, "Cutting grass with non renewable resources was idiocy." So my opponent, lacking substance to support his own claim, Says "HA! look at this fool." and he wasted his entire round two debate, pointing out what I had already said. He then goes on to deny that animals that have no food or water, can't outrun seasons or predators, can't catch prey etc... some how evolve. And that evolution thereby suggests that millions of years of change in the climate is or is not real, but regardless had no evidence to prove that. NOR were the last 90 years of temperatures recorded, day and night, day to day, or even month to month. Then he goes on for two more rounds about the OZONE, because he had no other claims to make than, "there is a hole over the Antarctic" sure sure, and McDonalds isn't being attacked by BurgerKing, Wendies, A&W and all other privately owned restaurants who also sell burgers for $7 because they sell cheap burgers. To debunk the Myth, ~ McDonalds sells so much meat it's always fresh. Derp. But the OZONE Gullible strike a bell? I agree Eating up non renewable resources sucks for the future, "Hey dad, Can I ride the motorbike?" *kicks kid* "Nope!" ** BRRM BRRRMM *** and polluting water is retarded as shitting in it. But You can't bring evidence the OZONE is real here so bring substance to the debate. I made it easy on you. Billions in government embezzlements in media and military, and you went head over heals for the topic of debate used to disillusion the masses. :P Pulling some strings here :P But what is the difference between 'Climate' and 'Weather' ? I had no debate here. I was playing. Because I thin it helps everyone to read what I say about things. You just happened to be atheist, so your brain stopped working, as apposed to a theist, who thinks their opponent is so stupid there is no point in communicating.

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 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.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Thank you for being honest and admitting you don't understand my arguments. Many people would not do that and it is a very honorable thing to do. I strongly encourage you to do your own research into both sides of the argument. That is what I did and ultimately found that the con side has a better argument. Two things that could help you get started in your research into the con side are these YouTube videos: 1. The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ( I know this is long but if you have the time then watch at least some of it) 2. Climate Change in 12 minutes - the skeptics case These two sources are really great and show a lot of flaws in your side of the argument Sadly, I only saw them yesterday so I couldn't use their points in this debate :) Thank you for debating and I hope you look into both sides because there are legitimate reasons why people don't believe in man made global warming.

Human-Caused Climate Change is Impossible

"New variables? New from what? " There was never plastic before humans arrived - is that not a new variable? Emissions from gas-powered vehicles have never been around until we invented them, Is that not a new variable? "And have evolved through natural Earthly means" So we weren't here over 200, 000 - when we came into being, Were we not a new variable? A new species? A new life form? Naturally or not, We came into existence and weren't always around. "Here's where the debate shifts to a "Pre-Determinism vs Free Will" debate" Uhh. . No? If you're saying me murdering your family will hold me accountable due to free will, Then climate change that was done due to human involvement is an act of free will and we'd be accountable - right? "I actually believe we ARE "foreign entities"" Then you've destroyed your whole argument by saying if x, Then p. And then claiming not x - which was your only logical path to p. You said we can't say human-caused climate change is possible without saying we are a foreign entity. Then you say we ARE a foreign entity. Even if I don't agree with you, You've already destroyed your own argument. "One must conclude that if Humans are causing Climate Change in a catastrophic way. . . We MUST be foreign entities in the Universe, Since without our ability to consciously comprehend, Study, And adjust to life conditions (the warming of the Earth, For example) we must be separate and apart from the subjects we are studying. " That makes as much sense as saying that black people are racist against rocks. "It's accurate in the sense that it's impossible only if we are evolved entities which developed from the Earth" You've yet to prove this. If humans evolved on Earth with intelligence, And then created destruction, And noticed this destruction as they advanced scientifically, What about this would require us to be foreign bodies? "And implanted into it through an Intelligent Designer/ God. " Is this actually a debate where you want to prove God? What is this BS? You're argument makes no sense, And your conclusion comes out of no where and isn't backed up by anything else you've said. There is no God, And we are not foreign entities. How with these conclusions can we say climate change by humans is impossible? What about being put on the Earth through evolution or God makes human-caused climate change possible or impossible?

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...