Anthropogenic climate change.
Acknowledgement of opposing evidence I shall first bring up some evidence in favor
of anthropogenic climate change. One may wonder why I would do this when I am arguing against anthropogenic climate
change, but it’s really simple: I do this in order to provide the opposing side some
representation and then I will present my side to refute that side’s argument. That
is the most logical way of debating, and if you ignore evidence when it is available
to you, that is a cherry-picking fallacy. The main evidence of anthropogenic climate
change, is the increased levels of CO2 emissions within the past couple of centuries.
It is believed that irreversible effects are occurring now and into the future due
to increased CO2 emissions, and that this CO2 emission increase is due to primarily
human activity [1]. In fact, in this study, it is shown that if humans were to cut
all CO2 emissions the CO2 in the atmosphere would linger still and still cause more
warming even if it were all put to an end. [1] There are of course plenty of other
studies that show this as well. Refuting the scientific consensus There is often stated that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real[2]. However, it is a fallacy to trust the words of authorities on the matter without considering the
evidence. In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited,
it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. In science, something needs to be tested over and
over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it.
The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t
understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved
anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. Reiterating previous
debate points In a previous debate with the same user, it was established that 3.225%
of all CO2 emissions are caused from humans by unnatural causes. [4] In addition,
the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree
fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. Problems with CO2 emissions claims Since
there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which
the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidence” that claims
anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions,
the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the
earth. In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2
emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around
[5]. If it was as simple as CO2 rises, and therefore temperature rises due to it,
then the reverse should not be happening where temperature rises and then CO2 rises.
It was also found that CO2 forcing effects on seasonal temperature to be inconclusive,
particularly since CO2 emissions cause warming at first, but the warming causes more
evaporation of water and thus more clouds and humidity, which lead to a cooling effect,
the net effect is not much change in the overall temperature [5] Next, another study performed by G. V Chilingar et
al found that “Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural
productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of
small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result
of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.” In another comprehensive study on global temperature rises by Patrick J. Michaels
et al, it was concluded from “observations of atmospheric CO2 buildup and global CO2
emissions... that lead to exponential warming... is not based upon the reality of recent decades.” Many of the models scientists have
come out with to show that CO2 rises cause exponential warming, are not reflective
of what has actually been happening in the world, and the warming in the world is much more linear. Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles that
show problems with anthropogenic climate change; there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually
affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming, to problems with climate models, to what should have been expected to result from anthropogenic climate change not actually happening. [7] Due to all of these issues listed above in this category
and the previous 3, it is difficult to believe the climate scientists who claim anthropogenic climate change is a reality, when, as far as I’m aware, they have not addressed the above issues outlined.
Inconclusive results and the default position Because as mentioned before, that majority
of the studies done into anthropogenic climate change resulted in inconclusive or neutral results, the default position should be that
anthropogenic climate change does not exist. Just as believing a god doesn’t exist is the default position when there is not conclusive evidence for or against a god, or majority of the evidence is inconclusive or neutral, so would then the position on anthropogenic climate change have the default position of not believing in it. Sources: [1] http://www.pnas.org... [2] http://climate.nasa.gov... [3] http://iopscience.iop.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... [5] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
[6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu... [7] https://skepticalscience.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
