args

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." I have assumed no such thing. But Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting. I would like to point out 2 things wrong with Climate Alarmists' arguments: 1) There are a very large number of Climate and Climate related scientists that do not believe in, or are skeptical of Climate Alarmists assertions. One flaw in this particular branch of science is how the "community" is dealing with "discenters". Most of those who "deny" AGW are treated with Ridicule and Scorn, have their jobs threatened, and have simply opted to leave because of the treatment they receive. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... 2) To understand abnormal, we must first have the baseline for which the discussion can be built. In the Climate Alarmist v. Climate Denier argument, there are 3 critical pieces of information that have not been fully addressed: What is "Normal" or "Optimal" when it comes to Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate. How can we know what is "out of the ordinary" if what is "normal" is never exposed? Do we simply assume that the climate of the past 50, 100, 1000, years is "normal" and any deviation from that "normalcy" is "abnormal"? At what point do we say we have a good idea of what "normal" is? And what is "normal"? How about the period in our recent history where the Earth hit a point called "the Holocene Climate Optimum". It was between 4c and 6c warmer than our current temperatures today. Is this "normal"? Is it "optimal"? Or the Little Ice Age? Is that "normal" or "optimal"? Please define both NORMAL and OPTIMAL ... Mr. Merrill continues: "Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or 'ignoring every argument.'" When the BULK of an argument concentrates on perceived fallacies, without benefit of using verifiable sources to argue the points made, it is. For instance, Mr. Merrill perceived an "appeal to nature" fallacy but ignore that a great many things ARE natural. Like the fluctuations of climate, for which we are having this discussion. How is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Mr. Merrill does the same here, in this reply. He has stopped arguing the points of contention to spend his time dealing with perceived fallacies, as explained below. Mr. Merrill: "I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes." Ignored? Misrepresented? To your first paragraph (Atmospheric CO2), I responded with 6 of my own. I discuss everything from the positive effects of increased CO2 and Biomassing to the evidence that shows CO2 increases FOLLOW, not PRECEDE the Temperature Increases. I also discuss the lack of definition of "OPTIMAL" and question why events such as "warming", "wetting", "cooling" and "drying" are witnessed before the "industrial age" before MAN can be blamed for the anomalies. Instead of dealing with these issues, Mr. Merrill wants to "drop" this subject, "Could we perhaps call this a 'dropped point'?" Sorry, Mr. Merrill, I will not let you ignore the scientific facts that the climate is in flux, has been for millions (billions) of years, and will continue to be. Mr. Merrill continues: "Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart." The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. 650,000 years is only approximately .0143% of the geologic timescale available. See: http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill then misrepresents the facts in his statement, "The image from [32] 'NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus' shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years". The chart shows a change in temperature over the past 132 years. The last 17 years are shown in the far right side of that graph, which does, clearly, show a slowing in temperatures. See: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill continues: "... greenhouse gases." Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -- I have not taken issue with "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", I have taken issue with what the Climate Alarmists are calling "unprecedented global warming due to man's activity". Mr. Merrill: "we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature." Which may be true AND ignores the proofs given in my previous argument that Temperature has been shown to PRECEDE increases in CO2. The fact that CO2 increases AFTER the Temperature increases is interesting and should merit further study. The science is most definitely not settled. Further, Mr. Merrill, here and in [35] below, demonstrates an inability to draw parallels, "I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade." Finally, we note, Mr. Merrill, that you fail to deal with the other portions of my response to your arguments; the second paragraph, "Atmospheric Ozone", and the third paragraph, "Oceanic". Instead, he continues his fallacious denial, which I will now deal with: 35. "This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures." Alarmism does not good science make. 36. See [35] 37. "In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic." Mr. Merrill is ignoring the science which shows that higher concentrations of CO2 are not "bad" but "good" for the Biosphere. This goes to the NATURAL nature of Climate Change and the Earth's response to those changes. Ignoring the science to make a point is, well, a fallacy. 38, 39, 40. See [37] 41. "Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels." Correct. Because it is hard to claim, as Climate Alarmists do, "man made CO2 is causing warming" if in fact the warming comes BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Thank you for conceding that point. 42, 43, 44. Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. "but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog." Logical Fallacy. If the information presented is correct, credentials or other factors are irrelevant. 45. "Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures." Assumption. If changes have happened, are happening and will happen, there is little we can do to change or alter those changes. Especially in the LONG TERM, as is shown, previously, by taking ALL the information, not less than 1% of the information available. 46. "Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I have said exactly what I hope to prove. The science is there to back it up. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument, dealing with it might. 47. "Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone." Your attempt here is to ignore your own argument. In Round 2 you posted un-cited information that Ozone is one of the Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming. The science says this may be correct, and the science says the Ozone is on the mend, which removes this factor from the argument. 48. "but it's listed as a myth. " The only myth here is that CO2 causes warming, Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. 49. "Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal" Maybe Mr. Merrill can explain what "standard deviation" means? 50. "Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast." Mr. Merrill is using yet another Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. Mr. Merrill is ignoring the fact that Climate Alarmists have been using things like "melting ice caps" and "disappearing polar bears" for years to make their point (also a Logical Fallacy, as pointed out, "Appeal to Emotion"). Yet, this is proven incorrect, polar bear populations are well on the increase. I will take Mr. Merrill's response here to mean he agrees with this point, and move on. 51. See [50] 52. "It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]." Here Mr. Merrill ignores the actual evidence on the page cited. He uses a Logical Fallacy: Poisoned Well, because its a blog. On that page we find a reference to peer-reviewed science that states, "This suggests that this warming episode is mainly due to internal dynamics of the ocean rather than external radiative forcing.", http://goo.gl... Using Logical Fallacies in this way only hurts Mr. Merrill's arguments, not helps them. 53, 54, 55. See [37] 56. "This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade." Mr. Merrill either didn't read the whole article, or is hoping it will "go away" as there are charts that show data from the 1950s. That is far more than 8 years. The data of the last 8 years simply shows the trend, as with the last 15-18 years of Global Temperatures, to have slowed its warming trend. This is valid information, because as above, Mr. Merrill has denied that any such thing happened, when it has been shown that it has happened. See the posted charts above. 57. Mr. Merrill is again misrepresenting the facts of the article presented. The fact is, as the opening statement suggests, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." -- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Global Warming is Real.

Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate! I look forward to an intellectually challenging discussion. Now to my opening arguments. The key to determining whether or not "Global Warming" as defined by my opponent is a myth or not, is the definition he provided: "Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate." Firstly, the belief that a warming period observed by our scientists and thought to be caused by man is permanent is misguided. The simple reality is, these changes are in no way permanent. We know that the climate millions of years ago was different, more humid and warm, and we also know that we have had ice ages in the past. We know that the climate during the first millenias of earth's existence were exceedingly moist and warm as well. We can, therefore, rightly acknowledge that it is not simply global warming that we see, but climate change. But is it permanent? The answer, of course, is no. For support, I point to the Great Oxygen Event, which took place nearly 2.4 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria, living organisms on earth, produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The Great Oxygen Event occurred when the cyanobacteria began to produce so much oxygen that the natural consumers of their oxygen could not keep up, and the earth's atmosphere became saturated with free and pure oxygen. Pure oxygen was not seen extensively in that time, and as such, the result of the increase in oxygen's concentration in the atmosphere was a mass extinction event of all organisms who did not require oxygen to live. Furthermore, the oxygen reacted with the methane in the atmosphere to produce the Huronian Glaciation, a 300 million year long period of cold temperatures and formations of glaciers.[1] And yet, here today we see that life as moved on. The earth has grown, experienced many more changes in climate, from more ice ages to warm humid climates yet again. The changes take place over a long period of time, yes. But the changes that lead to the Great Oxygen Event were extremely rapid in the reckoning of geology. Modern estimates believe that photosynthesis taking place at the rate we see today could have generated the Great Oxygen Event in roughly 2,000 years. [2] The driving point behind this argument is that Rapid climate change is not new, nor should it be unexpected. It has happened before, and it very well may happen again. Now, I will move to a key argument against the fears propagated by Climate Change enthusiasts. Humans exist naturally on earth, we evolved to this point of intelligence and biological stability as a species through nature. Our very existence is a natural thing. How then, can anything we do be considered unnatural? We were not plopped down on earth suddenly. It is not as if we use magic to convert these natural materials into fuel and gases. We operate under the confines of nature's laws, being of nature herself. Our use of fossil fuels, then, is not unnatural at all. We are simply utilizing the tools nature gave us to promote our livelihood, much like the Cyanobacteria were doing. And arguably, the cyanobacteria operated at a much faster rate than we do. The warming of oceans by mere fractions of degrees per decade will not spell the end of Earth, nor will it wipe out all life. Just as after the Great Oxygen Event and Huronian Glaciation nature survived and thrived, so too will life on earth survive and thrive even after we are gone, whatever the cause of our disappearance may be. If, then, the use of fossil fuels is natural, having occurred by a natural process and set in motion by a natural life form, and rapid climate change originates not just from man, but from the rest of nature as well, what is all the fuss about? The threat posed by climate change is not directed towards the Earth, or even towards Nature itself. It is directed towards us. Humans are the ones who will be in danger if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Not nature. Nature survives, nature has survived more devastating occurrences than man could ever hope to throw at it. Whole continents have crashed together, been torn apart, mountain ranges have been battered down and raised up, violent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, monstrous meteors and asteroids, and massive extinction events have all occurred during the span of Earth's life. Is it not prideful, arrogant even, to think that Man can possibly compete with such devastating forces? To think that man might be able to destroy nature, when we have barely left a mark with our most powerful weapons of destruction? To sum up my arguments: 1) It is not Global Warming specifically that we observe, but Climate Change, both warming and cooling. The effects of Global Climate change in one direction or another are not permanent. Nature adapts and moves on after every great event. 2) Global Climate Change, whether rapid or slow, is a natural occurrence, and the example of the Great Oxygen Event shows that organisms on Earth have been altering the climate for hundreds of millions of years. We cannot, therefore, expect to leave the climate completely untouched. Nor is it wrong for us to utilize the intelligence nature gave us to promote our livelihood. 3) Because Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence, whether or not it originates from Man, it is nothing for nature or the Earth to fear, and nor is it our duty to fear for Nature or the Earth. Rather, we are the ones who will be adversely affected. I now hand the debate back to Pro. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

This would not be the best way to determine if climate change is man made because we alread know that it isn't, and if we reduced our CO2 emmissions this would cripple our economies severely.

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

As a reminder to the judges and my opponent, The debate is on whether or not the US should make the terraforming of our earth a LOW priority or a med-high priority. I'm going to rephrase some of my opponent's arguments to be yes/no questions. See how many you agree with. 1. Scientists are sure there will be a catastrophe, But since they can't us exactly how many trillions of dollars it will cost it should be a low priority. 2. Since I as a non-scientist deem the scientist's proposed solutions unappealing, We should not fund their research fully until they have already developed solutions that appeal to me 100%. 3. If there isn't ONE solution to climate change we should not take the proposed solutions seriously. I don't think 20 different solutions that get us small portions of the way there is a viable way to deal with climate change. IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from solar, Wind, Geothermal, Or nuclear. We can't use all of them. 4. I think when climate research is funded that money disappears off the face of the planet instead of being circulated back through the economy. All $2T of research (if that is true) is completely gone off the face of the Earth. (This is not how economies work) 5. I said funding for climate change should be the equivalent of the space race which was high priority but that doesn't mean I conceded that climate change should be high priority. 6. It shouldn't be governments that have to answer to the people that should deal with the terraforming of our planet, It should be private companies who aren't answerable to the people. 7. Other problems exist. We can't solve those other problems at the same time as we solve climate change, Because the scientists who study those problems definitely stop studying those problems and working on solutions to those problems and focus instead on areas of research outside of their field of study. Definitely. This is the problem with my opponent's line of reasoning. There need not be ONE solution to climate change. If something gets us 5% of the way there, That's great. If research is funded for solutions, We will find better and more practical solutions as well, Which may allow us more control over the climate in case the climate scientists are wrong and the climate starts cooling. Solar power CAN give us more than 100% of current power requirements easily. I'm not sure why he is pretending it cannot. I gave sources for this. The sun is a literal fusion reactor many times the size of our planet. I couldn't even get him to concede this point. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. I can list hundreds of different problems. The sad fact is most of them don't lead to catastrophes. Diseases, Malnutrition, Poverty, And malaria in particular would all be significantly increased with a warmer climate. No economist agrees with tariffs and those can be gone whenever Trump wants. The negative terraforming of our planet is the most serious problem we face today.

CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.

Climate Shift

I understand why you're confused about my argument. You seem to be equally confused about the scientific consensus which was claimed by the following article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... If you read the article again and pay special notice to the update the author added at a later time. 97% of scientists "who took a position" support global warming. However the reality is that 67% of published papers on the subject took no position at all. So 33% of scientist are the only ones being considered. That is not a very overwhelming consensus. As a matter of fact that is filtering the results to support a preconceived conclusion. The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now.