args

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. I have shown evidence. For example, In Round 1 I gave evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. I will cite my sources in the comments. I have also rebutted your arguments. Note: you do not need to use logic in your rebuttals. You can simply state why something would not work. . . Also, You have claimed that having studied the properties of CO2 for 10 years gives you a position of authority on the matter. It does not. Your conspiracy theory makes little sense, And you have refuted none of my arguments. For example, You said that: The Arctic had forest growth as recent as 1000 years ago Climate researchers are fraudulent They manipulated the evidence There is no evidence for any of these claims, And then for you to say: "And thus all climate researchers are criminals and global warming doesn't exist" is plainly ridiculous. As previously said, I will cite my sources in the comments. And if you state that the sources are from You have done neither of these basic things so far. I have shown evidence. For example, In Round 1 I gave evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming. I will cite my sources in the comments. I have also rebutted your arguments. Note: you do not need to use logic in your rebuttals. You can simply state why something would not work. . . Also, You have claimed that having studied the properties of CO2 for 10 years gives you a position of authority on the matter. It does not. Your conspiracy theory makes little sense, And you have refuted none of my arguments. For example, You said that: The Arctic had forest growth as recent as 1000 years ago Climate researchers are fraudulent They manipulated the evidence There is no evidence for any of these claims, And then for you to say: "And thus all climate researchers are criminals and global warming doesn't exist" is plainly ridiculous. As previously said, I will cite my sources in the comments. And if you state that the sources are from climate research organisations, Well - yes, They are, But there is no evidence for the fact that climate researchers are fraudulent, So that's an invalid dispute.

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

Well, as expected, my opponent has ignored my two references which clearly shows that the whole climate change fiasco is an elaborate money making scam. Then he proceeds to produce false information which has been specifically designed to trick and fool people into believing in climate change. My opponent also suggests that if the climate changes that it will pose a threat to humanity. This is false information as well. This is because the Earth is like a thermostat which self regulates itself. Thus, if you add extra heat to the Earth, then, this will create more cloud which will then cool the Earth back down to an even average temperature. 1. My opponent has ignored 1000 top level scientists who have clearly indicated that climate change science is a fraud. 2. My opponent has ignored that Maurice Strong was an evil person who used climate change as a means of gaining power and personal wealth. Quote from Quadrant - 'Investigations into the UN"s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong " issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.' Note - We can plainly see that the instigator of climate change was himself a criminal. Thus, how can we accept climate change and the science of climate change when the originator is a crook? 3. The hockey stick graph trick. An email was intercepted which reveal that graphs were inverted. That's the trick that was used to create an increase in temperature. https://climateaudit.org... 4. Adding more Co2 doesn't increase temperature. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. More CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. In other words, the first 20% of the CO2 in the air does most of what CO2 does, and it doesn't do much.

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

There is so much on this issue I don't know what to explain first. Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend. No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au... No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org... Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more) Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it. Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless. http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around. Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au... Lags warming 3: http://i29.tinypic.com... Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years: Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com... (I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.) Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown. Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org... Fact 7: The Earth has been warming for 15000 (or 20000) years. Warming for 15000 (or 20000 it depends on the data) years: http://www.oarval.org... Fact 8: In the last 8000 years, we have had 4 major global warm periods naturally. We had the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Holocene maximum. All major warm periods: http://notrickszone.com... Medieval warm period was global 1: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... Medieval warm period was global 2: http://www.climatedepot.com... Fact 9: All major planet bodies in our solar system are experiencing rapid climate change, indicating that the heating on Earth could be caused by something in the solar system, not the planet. Mars: Ice caps are shrinking, two pictures showed possible warming (these could be unreliable due to dust storms), atmosphere is gaining clouds, ozone and water vapor (indicating warming). Pluto: Mysterious dark spots are becoming larger, atmospheric pressure increased by 300% (indicating warming) Saturn: Giving off x-rays, growing storm spots and other hot spots in its atmosphere (indicating warming) Uranus: Polar shifts, 2 large storms spots that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming) Mercury: Gaining a magnetic field, polar ice caps growing (indicating cooling) Jupiter: Plasma clouds merging together and growing new storm spots (indicating an 18 degree Celsius warming) Venus: 2500% increase in green glow indicating more oxygen in its atmosphere Neptune: Weird changes in light intensity. Earth: Rapid warming As you can see, every major planet in our solar system is experiencing rapid climate change. Scientists theorize that this is due to increased amounts of energy in the space around our solar system. Fact 10: There is no scientific way to test whether Co2 causes global warming. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Fact 11: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling. Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov... As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell. In conclusion, I have provided 11 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it. While my opponent gives links to a consensus and impacts of possible warming, I have focused on the argument at hand. Explaining why Co2 does not drive climate. While my opponent has made little to no argument, I have shown why the conclusions of the scientists in the consensus he listed were wrong. I thank my opponent for this debate, and may the best man/woman win!