args

Humans cause climate changing

First, as Con have said, "in the Mesozoic era the climate was much hotter and dryer". It is true, but the important thing is that it was 248 million years ago. The climate had been changing slowly during millions of years, before the industry. While, after people invented factories, vehicles and different weapons, such as nuclear weapons, Atom Bomb, rockets and etc. the climate have been changing quickly and humans caused it. For example, when rockets launches, Atom Bomb and nuclear weapons are used, irreparable damage to the climate is caused immediately. Humans even change the weather as they wish. For example, China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue skies for the National Day parade. It happens in other countries, too. They try to change weather and get the desire result. But it has consequences, as on the next days there happened a storm. These examples, show that humans changed the weather, as they desire and damaged to the climate a lot. Second, it is true that "humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases", while humans cause the biggest amount of gases. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world claimed: "The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years." It proves that humans cause climate changing and they influences to it quickly than it can be naturally. To conclude, humans are the main creature that caused a big problems in climate changing and damage it during a short period of time. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Picking boogers can help reverse climate change.

To conclude then, It has been duly proved throughout the whole debate that picking boogers indeed has a positive impact on our environment, On a global scale even as there are 7 + billions with a b beautiful booger picking souls out there who do nothing but help improving the climate on planet earth every time a booger bites the dust. A booger picking man Said "I have a plan" If we all just join in There will be so much win Climate saving it can

Anthropogenic global climate change.

Round four defense Outline. I. Scientific consensus. II. Co2 is unsaturated. III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. IV. Temperature is increasing. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. VI. Sources I. Scientific consensus. Fact: The scientific consensus used very high standards including being based upon a consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity. The climate scientists' findings were published in scholarly peer reviewed journals. Myth 1: The scientific consensus is an ad populum fallacy. Fallacy 1: The fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. People misuse fallacies all the time. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Wouldn't it be cool if you said "I am a millionaire" and it came true? "Scientific consensus What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population? There are two significant differences: Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth. Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.) " [17] Myth 2: The scientific consensus is groupthink. Fallacy 2: Misrepresentation, comparing past scientific consensus to present fails to take into account that today's standards are more robust than standards decades ago. This is like comparing a incandescent light bulb to a CFL (compact fluoride lamp) light bulb and claiming, the incandescent light bulb is an energy hog, therefore the CFL is an energy hog too. This is also jumping to conclusions. II. Co2 is unsaturated. Fact: Co2 is nowhere near saturation point. Co2 has been much higher in the past with much higher temperatures. Venus has much higher Co2 and has much higher temperatures. Myth: Co2 is saturated. Fallacy: Oversimplification. The height of which heat is escaping is rising. Meaning more heat is getting trapped in the lower atmosphere. Focusing solely on the air temperature absorption is missing the bigger picture that more air is getting warmed. The amount of heat escaping to space is decreasing. Think of your house, you can increase the heat by turning up the furnace or by better insulating your house. [18] Picture here: III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation. Fact: Co2 increase greenhouse warming. More heat means higher evaporation rates due to molecules breaking surface tension easier when excited. Myth: There evaporation rate has not increased therefore heat has not increased. Fallacy: Cherry picking most likely. My opponent does not tell how he/she got the graph in figure three. Is this worldwide or over a single location? Some areas will become wetter while others drier due to changes in the climate. Since the vast majority of the Earth is Ocean, it is safe to say evaporation rates have increased. Again, my opponent's argument and graph is too vague for me to fully address. Another possibility is my opponent is measuring the ocean's height. In that case water that is warmer expands. My opponent is asking me to stab in the dark because he/she failed to make a clear argument. IV. Temperature is increasing. Fact: Temperature increasing is a well established fact. From direct measurements including weather stations to indirect measurements including Co2 rising, sea level rise, more heat waves and more intense heat waves, less hurricanes but stronger hurricanes, higher humidity, and many more indicators. Myth: Temperature is not increasing. Fallacy: Misrepresentation. First, figure 4 provides supporting evidence for my side of the debate. The overall trend is upwards. The problem with raw data without a trend line is it is difficult to detect the overall upwards trend in temperature. As anyone can see in figure 4 the highest temperature is past 2010. V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint. Fact: Science is a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is the reason why there is the scientific method and peer review journals. Science is the polar opposite of blind faith. This is calling black white instead of black. Myth: Science is blind faith. Fallacy: Appeal to emotion fallacy comparing science to religion. The idea is to give the audience a cheap jolt and hope they remember the myth. VI. Sources 17. http://rationalwiki.org... 18. https://skepticalscience.com...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

First newmax.com is ultra conservative. "CEO of the uber-rightist Newsmax" [2] Second, temperatures are rising. Third, Antarctica ice increasing is consistent with global warming and in fact provides additional evidence that temperatures are rising. My opponent is in stage 1b of climate change denial. [3] You can read further about Antarctica ice here. [4] As for temperatures rising this seems like "Objection: Global temperatures have been trending down since 1998. Global warming is over." [5] As you can see newsmax and John Casey cherry picked the evidence by starting at the hottest year and an anomaly. [6] This is a classic cherry picking fallacy. Picture should be here if not use link to see the cherry picked data s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; /> https://grist.files.wordpress.com... Thanks for debating, it takes bravery to go against the grain. Sources. 2. http://www.newscorpse.com... 3. http://grist.org... 4. http://grist.org... 5. http://grist.org... 6. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

The climate is not "a changing".

Reference - Watts up With That? The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide. Extract - The natural heating effect of carbon dioxide is the blue bars and the IPCC projected anthropogenic effect is the red bars. Each 20 ppm increment above 280 ppm provides about 0. 03° C of naturally occurring warming and 0. 43° C of anthropogenic warming. That is a multiplier effect of over thirteen times. This is the leap of faith required to believe in global warming. The whole AGW belief system is based upon positive water vapour feedback starting from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm and not before. To paraphrase George Orwell, Anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, Much more equal. Co2 is irrelevant when considering global temperature. This is because the Earth doesn't act like a green house to begin with. The Earth is an open system which is not enclosed like a green house. Thus, Using the term 'green house' to describe climate is deceptive and misleading. The Earth is open system which can cool itself by using cold air from the Artic and Antarctic regions. Thus, The Earth acts like a thermostat and not like a green house. Thus, Even if CO2 did cause some increase in temperature, This would cause extra updraft which would cause extra cloud formation and suck in cold air from the artic or antarctic regions. Thus, The To paraphrase George Orwell, Anthropogenic carbon dioxide molecules are more equal than the naturally occurring ones. Much, Much more equal. Co2 is irrelevant when considering global temperature. This is because the Earth doesn't act like a green house to begin with. The Earth is an open system which is not enclosed like a green house. Thus, Using the term 'green house' to describe climate is deceptive and misleading. The Earth is open system which can cool itself by using cold air from the Artic and Antarctic regions. Thus, The Earth acts like a thermostat and not like a green house. Thus, Even if CO2 did cause some increase in temperature, This would cause extra updraft which would cause extra cloud formation and suck in cold air from the artic or antarctic regions. Thus, The climate would be able to self regulate itself by shifting air currents and cloud formation. CO2's saturation is logarithmic and its temperature influence deminishes drastically with concentrations over 80ppm. Note - 50% of saturation occurs in the first 20ppm. Thus, Doubling CO2 does not double temperature. In fact, Temperature inreases after 80ppm are so small they are really not worth recording. But, That doesn't stop climate change scientists trying to drum up climate change hysteria by providing false information and shonky numbers. Quote - There are several islands that have just completely disappeared in Micronesia. Yeah, Maybe you are right. These islands exist on the Rim of Fire where islands come and go on a regular basis. This area is highly unstable and has regular earthquakes and land shifts. But, As my last post reference said "A new study of over 700 islands for decades shows that even though seas are rising faster than any time in the last million years, Somehow no islands with people on are shrinking. This means there are no climate change refugees from any vanishing island. Plus it"s more proof that highly adjusted satellite data is recording sea levels on some other planet. " Thus, I think you we can safely say that my opponents argument has been completely refuted.

Anthropogenic climate change.

Round 3 Rebuttals "Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now?" RonPaulConservative Do you have any proof that the general scientific consensus was that the Earth used to be flat? This is a bare assertion fallacy without any outside sources, only true because you say it is true. A counter proposal is that the masses were mesmerized by religious dogma that made them believe the Earth was flat. ""that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)" "He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)" "for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)" "Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)" " [0] As you can see the Old Testament clearly promotes the idea of a flat Earth. The Old Testament is religious doctrine as opposed to scientific. Meanwhile, early philosophers/scientist proposed and announced the Earth was spherical in shape. "It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round. Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!" [1] Therefore, scientists have never claimed the Earth was flat, and instead religious doctrines and leaders have promoted the idea of a flat Earth. "Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " RonPaulConservative Please use spell check. The 70's cooling trend was due to sulfur aerosol forcing. By the very nature of science a hypothesis can be dis proven and adjusted accordingly, this flexibility is the greatest strength of science as opposed to unyielding faith based doctrine. "The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg - less radiation reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80's, the trend reversed and radiation levels at the Earth's surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80's, the cooling effect from aerosols was masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling ended, the current global warming trend began." [2] "From the mid-1990s the sub-thermocline southern Indian Ocean experienced a rapid temperature trend reversal. Here we show, using climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, that the late twentieth century sub-thermocline cooling of the southern Indian Ocean was primarily driven by increasing anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. " [3] As you can see man-made aerosols caused the cooling trend. "Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. " RonPaulConservative Many predictions were wrong, but this is how science works, a scientist makes a prediction, then sees if it is correct or incorrect and adjusts accordingly. Each prediction becoming more and more accurate. "None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. " RonPaulConservative While it is true that there has been cooling and warming periods in the past, this is a red herring. The rapid rate of Co2 accumulation and temperature change has been correlated with catastrophic events in the past. [9] There is no evidence that the warming trend will decrease. You have shown no evidence that a natural event is causing the current warming trend. "In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. " RonPaulConservative This seems blatantly false, global temperatures are rising and have been rising. [4] "Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." [4] Also, you choose Newsmax as your source which is about as non-credible as source as you can get. [5] "NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site." [5] "RIGHT BIAS These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [6] Newsmax.com has almost an extreme right bias. "This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. " RonPaulConservative The Antarctic ice sheets are shrinking. "The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass." [7] "Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2" RonPaulConservative A small amount of Co2 can cause large increases in temperature due to the amplification effect, also known as postive feedback cycle. "In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [8] "The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative That may not seem a lot to you but .6 degrees Celsius is quite a lot in 120 years. The problem is not the temperature increase itself, but the rapid rate of change that will shock the Earth's ecosystems. Finally, Co2 levels continue to rise dramatically. [9] There should be no doubt that I destroyed my opponent's round two argument. Showing the statements to be blatantly false, red herrings, and/or from bias sources. Sources 0. http://www.answering-christianity.com... 1. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... 2. https://skepticalscience.com... 3. http://www.nature.com... 4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com... 5. http://www.sourcewatch.org... 6. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. https://www.sciencedaily.com... 9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...