Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns Con managed to find recent examples of politicians
blaming hurricanes and forest fires on climate change, and has cited how humans are not in danger of asphyxiation, but he has neglected
the long-established mainstream concerns of the scientific community. They now deserve
review. Atmospheric CO2: CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally
makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light
is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection
process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared
light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light
pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways.
This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet,
which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space,
and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium.
Atmospheric Ozone: Unlike most greenhouse gases, ozone deflects ultraviolet light,
which is dangerously energetic. While most greenhouse gases keep life on earth warm and cozy,
ozone prevents UV rays from directly burning life forms. Climate change from emission of halocarbons and CFCs are thankfully already regulated because of
their ability to destroy ozone, but they are one more example of the potential for
anthropogenic climate change. Oceanic: The oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting
drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun,
and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain
point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which
may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. Con
points to the seasonal increase in ice, ignoring the seasonal decrease in ice (see
logical fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter), and to a non-scientific news article that predicted
we would not have ice at this time (see logical fallacy: Fallacy). Fallacious Logic:
Anecdotal [26] vs. Statistical Evidence and Misinterpretation of Mistakes [27]: If
a physicist miscalculates the speed of the moon, it doesn't disprove the theory of
gravitation. If we argued about whether gravity existed, it would be perfectly fair
for Con to cite research projects that conclude that Newton's calculus systematically
fails at predicting the paths of celestial bodies, but if Con cannot find such research
conclusions, substituting with examples where "meteor alarmists" fail to predict the
exact path of a meteoroid for five years brings nothing to the discussion. There are
two logical reasons for this: Con would be relying on 1) 'anecdotal' evidence that
ignores a larger picture, and 2) an absolutist interpretation in which a single mistake
disproves an entire theory. This is the precise mechanism Con used in the first round of this debate. He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change theorists, but they scarcely dented the scientific data showing the existence of
anthropogenic climate change. He additionally provides one link labeled "bad science," one labeled "manipulations"
and two links labeled "lies," which are additionally statistically irrelevant and
inevitable. Again, following this logic, would Con conclude that chemotherapy is inneffective because it occasionally doesn't work? No, he would know better, because
even though the burden of proof relies on the treatment, instances where it demonstrates
validity are more relevant than instances where it does not. What changes so much
about people's thought process when contemplating climate change? Con's third properly cited source debunks an incorrect 5-year prediction by BBC,
and its author, David Rose, writes as if this debunks every climate change theory on earth. Con's sixth properly cited source responds to a New York Times article,
because actual climate science holds that increases in global heat can go undetected to atmospheric readings
for decades at a time, partially because the oceans absorb heat as well. Strawman
Fallacy [28]: Of the seven sources Con cites properly, the first responds to the hurricane
correlation but admits to global warming. The second responds to the wildfire correlation
but says nothing of global warming. Climate science never relied on hurricanes or wildfires as evidence. Cherrypicking and the
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy [29]: Con's third properly cited source neglects the past
century, the past decade, and mentions only that the arctic still gets colder at the
proper time of year (and is written by a biased reporter whose profile boasts of shooting down "climate alarmists"). The fourth referred only to antarctic sea ice of 2013 and admitted to
an average warming of temperatures, stating “If the warming continues, at some point
the trend will reverse,” and even cites a long-established global warming theory that
the average increase in temperatures creates hotter and colder extremes (Antarctic
temperatures count as extremes). The fifth ignores global polar bear numbers and focuses
on the "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," and responds only to "Polar Bear worries,"
distorting the concerns of mainstream climate scientists who already believe global warming will freeze the colder parts of the
globe for the next several decades. The sixth responds to a New York Times article
that I can only assume is fallacious - I didn't check, because the New York Times is not a scientific journal, nor is Forbes. Con's seventh properly cited source refers to sea level, which depends on
melting ice, which I've already mentioned was never scheduled to happen on mass scales
for several more decades, because climate change starts by making hot areas hotter and cold areas colder. Appeal to Nature [30]: Polio,
the Flu, infant mortality, the bubonic plague, and a host of other issues are all
perfectly natural, but for some reason most of society felt they are worth our attention.
While I daresay Con would agree, his basic logical processing once again changes when
the topic becomes climate change. "For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools" and "I don't believe,
however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon" are fallacious appeals to
nature by Con. Accusations of Monetary Incentive: Con has stated that climate research is all about grant money, but hasn't defined any government objective to alarm people
about climate change. In fact, the greatest political rivals of climate environmentalism are oil and coal. The government's oil lobby is huge, and many Congressmen have financial investments in oil and deny the existence
of climate change. American voters complain to the U.S. government when gas prices go up, and the U.S.
government has subsidized oil markets for decades. Coal produces the cheapest electricity
prices available, and is commonly painted politically as an employment blessing to coal miners. Also, Con's
sixth source responds to "New York Times" hysteria, not scientific hysteria, suggesting
a rivalry between corporate news agencies. Ambiguity of Semantics [31]: "it has been
common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term
"Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of Climate Change." What? Abuse of sources: Misrepresentation of scientific sources provided: I quote
from one of Con's Solar Radiation links: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown
a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the
sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause
of recent global warming. The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures
is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite
direction." Con no doubt referenced and pasted his Solar Radiation links thinking
they would show that Global Warming occurs because of the sun, when in fact they show
the opposite. Selection of non-scientific sources: While he cites scientific sources
to discuss Solar Radiation in the comments section, and while he pastes several links
from nature.com (claiming they "talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem"),
the sources he effectively summarizes and properly cites are non-scientific. Lack
of citation for relevant sources and overcitation for irrelevant sources: "The AVERAGE
temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c." - It's possible Con means negative
18c, which is what the average temperature of the earth would hypothetically be if the greenhouse
effect didn't work. Our existence is a demonstration of its relevance. I would visit his provided source to find out what
he really means, but none was provided. Con pasted so many URL's that he avoided reading,
summarizing or discussing that he didn't have room to provide actual sources for the
facts he cited. He provided so many sources that support my end of this argument that
by taking the time to explain them, I scarcely have space to add any more. Since it
is my belief that debates have character limits to help force debaters to know what
they are talking about, I refuse to follow his example and post a chaotic pool of
sources in the comments section. 26. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 27. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 28. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 29. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
30. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... 31. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
