args

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

First my opponent says that I should have asked questions about the structure earlier in the debate but ignores the fact that, in the comment section, I did ask about the order of the debate and explain what I thought it meant. Therefore, I did alert my opponent to my confusion and my opponent either chose to ignore it or did not see it but either way I made my confusion known. Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming Therefore, my opponent did break their own rules. My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that: 1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants. 2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made climate change you are preventing research into that area and therefore creating a huge bias in the experiments done and articles published. In conclusion, my opponent has not rebutted even one of my claims, instead they focus on the accusations of rule breaking. Due to this absence of rebuttals, my arguments stand and therefore, based on this debate, I have proven how climate change is not much of a threat, and that global warming is not caused by man. While my opponent may of used abstracts from peer reviewed articles (as they love pointing out) I have won the debate. I have given 11 points to why climate change is not due to Co2 and given countless examples of natural disaster frequency staying constant. All of the arguments I have made in this debate go uncontested and therefore prove that climate change is not man made and that the threat is exaggerated. Due to this, all voters are mandated to vote Con under more convincing arguments and conduct. Thank you for reading this debate.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Thanks for accepting. By the way, I really like your profile picture. ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and ;) Well, here we go- 1. I have immense respect for Pope Francis. He's my role model, and I respect anything he says. With that said, he's the head of the Catholic Church, not the head of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. Pope Francis's is more than welcome to voice his opinion on this topic, but his opinion is just as good as yours and mine. 2. The fact that we're having a debate on whether Climate Change is even real or not raises serious questions about its existence. 4. The Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking.

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

Thank you for posting this debate, I hope to be a worthy opponent!!!! Your argument is based on the pope's opinion as well as a scientific documentary My argument will be based on historical evidence as well as current scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Global Climate Change First I'd like to clarify that Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same theory with a different name and I will treat them as such. First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or Warming) Thus the theory of Global Climate Change (warming) is - a change in global climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onward and attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. I'd like to give a more simplified version of the above statement by giving this general statement released by the IPCC on what Climate Change is "Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change." Next, I'd like to refute my opponent's arguments Argument 1) Pope Francis recognizes climate change and he "Knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat" My Response: Pope Francis has no college degree in science (he does have a "titulo" as a chemical technician, which is not a college degree) and either way he is not a climatologist and his opinion does not count as an expert's opinion and his opinion is on par with the opinion of world leaders and celebrities... Essentially, his opinion on climate change is just as important as the opinion of Vladimir Putin's, neither count as an expert, but their opinion's count as a World Leader's opinion. Argument 2) An Inconvenient Truth My Response: I will watch the entirety of this movie so I can refute the movie in my next argument Now I will give my basic arguments 1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid During World War II, U.S. oil production increased by 3 billion barrels annually during the war. Both the Allies and the Axis used incredible amounts of oil and the best scientific data available, which is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shows that carbon dioxide levels literally "flat-lined" during the decade between 1940 and 1950 staying at 311.3 PPM and actually going down between 1941 and 1945, (the period that the US was in the war) [1] So, how did burning another 12+ billion barrels of oil not increase CO2???? Because, there is no direct link between oil usage and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Of course CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of oil, but that CO2 has had little to no affect on atmospheric CO2 as seen in my example above. 2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record... According to the UAH and RSS climate research satellites there had been no warming between the late 90's and 2015 in fact 2014, was only .01 degrees hotter than 2005, and 2013 was only .02 degrees warmer than 2005. The conclusion from the analysis of the data is that while there has been a .05 degree warming trend since 2002, according to researchers that is "statistically insignificant" [2] The small upward trend from 1978 to 2015 is .2 degrees Celsius and is once again classifiable as statistically insignificant and is not proof of any man made global warming, in fact the lack of a significant upward trend shows not only that global warming predictions on climate and temperatures have been well off, but that there may not be any man made global warming at all. (excuse the site on the chart, woodfortrees.org is not where I got the chart, the source I used for the chart is the one listed as source 2) 3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory NASA satillites discovered that the antarctic sea ice had reached a new record high in 2012 and then again in 2014, in 2014 it set a record for the largest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history [3]. Global Warming theory dictates that the Ice caps would begin to melt at an alarming rate, but if that's the case then how come this has occurred. In fact Al Gore and many Global Warming theorists stated that the ice caps would be completley gone by 2013, when the exact opposite has occurred. The red line in the photo is the largest that the ice had ever been recorded at. 4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases look at both of the below charts, the first chart is CO2 and temperature data for the last 750 million years, each blue dot represents the temperature and CO2 levels. What you can see is that the dots are everywhere and seemingly when CO2 is raised the dots tend to be higher, but there are several dots (call them outliers if you wish) that even nearing 5000 PPM CO2 are still cooler than the average Earth Temperature. On top of this, why are there dots near the 1000 PPM range that are higher up on the anomaly range than the dots at 7000 PPM. The Second chart shows CO2 and Temperature from 1999 to 2014, what can be seen is a very, very small trend line which is again considered Statistically Insignificant, showing no proof of a global climate change. (specifically the trend is .00668, which is essentially 0 to statisticians) [4] s://s17.postimg.io...; alt="" /> s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" /> Both Charts show a lack of evidence with CO2 and Temperature, In fact, it could be said that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature Change. However IPCC's definition of Global Climate Change requires such a correlation and if such a correlation is not apparent than Climate Change theory is flawed and thus Global Climate Change would not exist. So, based on all 4 of my points I am in firm negation of the topic in which we are debating. Thank you for reading this argument and looking at my charts!!! I hope you understood it, and I can't to see your next round. I'd like to remind my opponent of his BoP, which because of him being the pro he must prove specifically that Man Made Climate change is real and a threat he must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, my BoP is not to disprove Climate Change but rather to cast a shadow of a doubt, similar to a court case the judges must not have ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he has won or they must give me the victory. Sources: [1]http://data.giss.nasa.gov... [2]http://dailycaller.com... [3]http://www.nasa.gov... [4]https://wattsupwiththat.com... In case the charts/pics dont show up... Here are each of the chars on an external link: 1: http://dailycaller.com... 2: http://www.nasa.gov... 3:https://s17.postimg.io... 4: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...