args

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...

Climate change is a fraud

I'll accept this challenge. First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic climate change or all climate change? If it is the former, As I suspect it is, I won't waste time explaining all the evidence that the globe is, In fact, Warming at an unprecedented rate and instead go straight into attribution. If, However, You don't think the globe is really warming at an unprecedented rate, I'm happy to go into the evidence for it. Moreover, "fraud" implies more than just the majority of scientists being wrong (i. E. Misinterpreting the evidence) but also that they are intentionally lying. This is a big claim given the number of scientists who support the concept of anthropogenic climate change and one that incurs its own burden of proof. See you some time in the next 72 hours.

Climate Change is a real issue

The climate is not changing. The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organization that has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the climate is changing. This person will most likely have a secret agenda that has nothing to do with climate. I propose that climate change is a fraud and that the people who support it are all frauds and charlatans. The science of human-caused climate change is faulty and full of misconceptions and bad science. There is proof that climate change is all fake news started by Obama & crew. Those people who listen to that scientist are a jew 1. Video evidence - The In-depth Story Behind A Climate Fraud. The 97% consensus fraud. 2. It's mathematically impossible and against the laws of physics that a tiny human mass verses huge Earth mass, That the former can effect the latter. 3. The properties of CO2 are such that it can't create global warming on the scale indicated by scientists. This is because CO2 reaches it's saturation point at 80 parts / million and doesn't reflect any significant amount of heat after this point is reached. 4. Maurice Strong is the main person that started this whole climate frenzy movement and was found to be corrupt and fled to China to hide from the global police. 5. Climate data fraud. Tree rings used as evidence when it is known that tree ring growth is not an accurate measurement of temperature. "Hide the decline" email by Phil Jones. Mike's trick. Hockey stick nonsense. Inverted graphs. Etc. There, That should keep you busy for a while. Refute all these points. Good luck.

Anthropogenic climate change.

While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] -stupidape However, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive. It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real. "False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidape Well, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7. .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] -Stupidape There are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming. "Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]" -Stupidape However, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13] "Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change." -stupidape There are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt. "As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models." -stupidape This doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model? Sources: [11] http://www.nationalreview.com...; [12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf [13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Climate change

The theory that CO2 drives climate rose to prominence in the 1980s. The earth had been cooling from the 30s into the 70s, and by the early 70s the threat of an approaching ice age was the consensus of scientists and was hyped in the press. CO2 theory was derived by tweaking computer models under the assumption that the sun was inactive, and climate was being driven by CO2. The models predicted that the earth would be, by last summer, eight degrees warmer than was actually observed. The models also fail to predict the distribution of temperatures from the surface upwards, and fail to predict the distribution from pole to pole. CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures over the last decade have been stable or slightly declining. In the history of the earth, there have been ice ages when there was 12 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere; it has never dominated climate. It's possible that CO2 makes a small contribution to climate cahnge, but clearly it's not the significant factor. If it were a key component, the CO2 models would have been proved right, rather than proved wrong. The magnetosphere of the sun has probably been driving climate change. CO2 theorists take the irradiance of the sun into account, but not the magnetosphere. Basically, solar magnetic activity moderates cosmic rays on earth, and the cosmic rays cause a cloud seeding effect which in turn affects cloud cover by the roughly 3% required to dominate climate. Historically, we know that a period of the Little Ice Age was characterize by there being virtually no sunspots. Cosmic ray theory is still unproved, but what is clear at this point is that something other than CO2 is in control of climate. The allegation is that Exxon-Mobile provides about $1.6 million per year to support non-CO2 research on global warming. Perhaps 40% of climate scientists dissent from CO2 theory, so Pro supposes that 40% of climate scientists can be bought for $1.6 million. In the current year, the US Congress alone "has provided over $2,000,000,000 in resources to address the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments, ... [including] $400,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which more than $200,000,000 is to enhance climate change research and regional assessments" http://www.climatesciencewatch.org.... This does not count the money poured in by private foundations and foreign governments. Al Gore alone has made $100 million from global warming advocacy, with his unscientific movie winning him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. An example of Gores "science" is that the IPCC says the worst case rise in sea level in the next hundred years is half a meter, but Gore shows New York being inundated. Gore regularly testifies before Congress in the role of an expert on global warming. In a BBC documentary, a researcher in the UK put it this way (paraphrasing): "If I apply for a government research grant to study, 'The food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex' I'll have a small chance of getting funding. But if I propose to study, 'The effects of global warming on the food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex,' my chances are much improved." http://www.amazon.com... Horner describes the outrageous bias shown in favor of CO2 theory and against opponents in his book: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed So Pro is contending that Exxon's measly $1.6 million completely invalidates any opposition research, but the billions paid in tribute to CO2 theory simply do not count. If anything, it validates the opposition as willing to carry on based upon dedication to science despite inadequate funding. In science, there is the peer review process by which publications are reviewed by fellow scientists. The peer review committees are likely to have majorities favoring CO2 theory. So how is it that opposing papers, which Pro dismisses as worthless because of their sponsorship, get past peer review? There is no question that hundreds of such papers are published; hundreds are listed on the co2science.org web site. My explanation is that most scientists are fundamentally honest, and most papers don't make global pronouncements, they chip away at parts of the problem. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it works well enough to filter out bogus papers. So how does Pro's theory of scientists being easily corrupted by small money ($1.6 million spread among thousands of scientists) explain the opposition papers passing peer review? Pro originally claimed that high temperatures on Venus proved that climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2. The fact is that 3500 times the CO2 produces 150 degrees of warming, so clearly it is insensitive. Pro then introduced an imaginary unlabeled curve to show that even though it was insensitive overall, it could be sensitive at our present low levels. That's a different argument. It could be, but is it? Pro offered nothing but an imaginary curve. I then referenced the curve shape computed from physical theory fitted to the data from the 20th century, showing that doubling the CO2 levels on earth would raise temperatures here by less than 2 degrees. Pro then responded that the curve does not work for Venus. True, it doesn't work for Venus. One reason is that CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, but it is the dominant greenhouse gas on Venus. On earth it is water vapor. A second reason is that the atmosphere on Venus is nearly a hundred times as dense as that of earth, and most of the greenhouse effect occurs relatively near the surface. This was explained in detail in the references I gave. This makes the calculation for Venus considerably different that from that for earth. Pro has not rebutted the calculations done for earth under the assumptions appropriate for earth, where water vapor dominates, the atmosphere is relatively thin, and we have actual data for the 20th century. Pro claims, "Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented." I did in fact respond to Pro's claim. I pointed out that Pro's claimed reference did not show the temperatures for the past decade. I then provided a reference that does show the temperatures, and clearly the temperatures have not been increasing as Pro claims. My exact words were, "The second graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com... compares actual temperature with climate model prediction. Temperature have been level for the past decade, and August 2008 was 3 C below June 1988, rather than projected 5 C above." Pro claims that I cannot logically attack both the existence of large consensus and the validity of the consensus. There is nothing illogical about attacking both. How many scientists believe something and whether it is correct or not are loosely coupled. Consensus on the shape of the earth or the 99.86% consensus on the theory of evolution are pretty convincing, but a 60/40 or 50/50 split is not a basis for claiming a reliable conclusion. CO2 theory has been taking severe hits as it continually fails to predict climate, and I'm not sure even if there is a consensus any more. Pro's only argument that there is a consensus is that the IPCC report exists. even though the IPCC is 70% non-scientists, the conclusions are dictated by a small elite, there is no peer review of the report, and scientists don't get to vote on it. The evidence is that CO2 is not a significant factor in recent climate change, and the variations in past climate cannot be attributed to CO2. CO2 to moderates climate, but for 600 million years the variations above that level have had little effect.

Anthropogenic global climate change.

But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen" -Stupidape This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well. "Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so." - Stupidape Yes, weather related deaths are happening. And they are declining. According to an article by a Department of the Interior Science and Technology policy analyst Indur M. Goklany, global death rates from weather-related disasters are declining [2]. "Death rates for the different categories of extreme events were generally lower in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s than in previous decades.". "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered the transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."- Stupidape In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that, "Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)." Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous. Goklany also says that, "Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change." This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated. "I will contend that anthropogenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent."-Stupidape Arguing that "anthropogenic climate change" is to blame for weather-related deaths doesn't prove it exists; it is simply an effect. An effect that wasn't supposed to be debated in the first place. "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%"100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al."- Stupidape The consensus cited is one example of how scientists manipulate data to push an agenda. Cook reviewed 11,914 abstracts, but only used 4,014 in his sample size because they expressed an opinion on global warming [3]. And from there, he got his 97% consensus, which is cherry picking, since he excluded the papers that did not give an opinion. But even THIS subset can't be relied on, as Former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Georgia and professor at the university Dr. David Legates and his colleagues reviewed Cook's consensus. Legates and his team found that, "Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not, in fact, supported it." [4]. Popular Technology reached out to scientists whose articles were in Cook's consensus. They said their papers were falsely classified or not included if they didn't endorse man-made climate change. "[Interviewer] Dr. Carlin, your paper A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; 'Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize'. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. [5]. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." "The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst."- Stupidape Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said, "Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays"s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change." Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. "The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997. One of the world"s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity"s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend."- Stupidape. First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing. "The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks." [7]. "Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. CEO"s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people " all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." - Stupidape Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry, {continued on http://pastebin.com...}