args

global climate change is human caused

"It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before." -According to the EPA: "Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by between 1.0 and 1.7�F since 1850 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006)." Now, the problem with this is that there was not a decline, rather a rise, in CO2 emissions between 1945-1975, so it is nearly impossible to pin the blame on any one factor, particularly humans. The EPA also states that: "Between roughly 900 and 1300 AD, evidence suggests Europe, Greenland and Asia experienced relative warmth. While historical accounts and other evidence document the warmth that occurred in some regions, the geographical extent, magnitude and timing of the warmth during this period is uncertain (NRC, 2006). The American West experienced very dry conditions around this time." This all occured BEFORE the industrial revolution, and before humans could possibly have any significant effect on global greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, though there is confidence within the scientific communit, there is not enough evidence to assign human fault in recent climate change: "Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time." That's just referring to the last 25 years, and discounting the drop in climate between 1945-1975. "Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily." -Well, thanks for asking what I think. I think the Earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling. I believe the Eearth has natural elements which control the percentages of greenhouse gases in it's atmosphere which regulate the temperatures between cooling periods (ice ages), warming periods (like now), and stable periods. There is enough evidence to suggest that humans are a contributing factor in a significant rise in the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, but the sharp rise in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere does not coincide with the slight rise in global mean temperature. "This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming." -The "greenhouse effect" is a GOOD thing. Any planet with an atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect"... otherwise the Earth would be like the moon. Global warming is also a GOOD thing. Can you imagine what the Earth would be like if it wasn't naturally insulated??? "Notice the part where it says "human activities". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming." -You didn't prove this, you simply stated this. Even if you were right, you are now contradicting your original statement. A "huge factor" is not en exclusive cause as you suggested in your statement: "Humans are causing the rise in global temperature". It also is contradictory to the entire statement: " Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming." Here are a few points you have failed to prove: -Humans are causing the rise in global temperature (Not true. The natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet, our current place in the warming/cooling timeline, and other natural anomalies are at least mostly responsible for any significant rise in global temperature- even by the estimates of the most staunch global warming scientists) -Humans are causing global warming. (Not true. This is completely false and impossible. Humans are not greenhouse gases, nor are we a part of the atmosphere. We are not the Sun that shines on the earth, we are not the ocean that traps and releases CO2 according to mean global temperatures, and we are not a part of hundreds of other natural factors that create the beneficial process of global warming) Now, for those of you who are too liberal and hardheaded to read a debate before voting on your own opinion- I am not saying greenhouse gas emissions should not be regulated. I am not saying that the global temperatures WON'T rise to higher levels, and I am not saying that humans do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. What I am saying is that the environmentalist position is misunderstood by many, and thus causes conservatives to disagree with and dismiss the issue of global warming. We must address the issues that are facts- greenhouse gases are required to promote the natural occurence of global warming. Greenhouse gases have risen by more than 38% in the past 100 years. Even if we cannot personally account for that 38% increase, we have the power to regulate further increases so that we may better aide in the stabilization of the presence of greenhouse gases so as to prevent the POSSIBILITY of an alarming increase in global temperatures. Stop the fearmongering and deal with the issues according to the facts (that applies to conservatives and liberals alike).

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent does not counter-argue even one of the points I made in my previous arguments/in the comment section. Instead he accuses of of making the argument grow in size to confuse people. Not only is this not true, but it points out how little my opponent understands my argument and this subject. If he had simply read the counter arguments I provided, you can see clearly that I do not try to distract from the topic at hand. Seeing as my opponent made no further arguments and did not make any comments about how I disproved all of his (relating to man causing the warming) claims, I am only left with the option to strengthen my own argument. Fact 1: Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method in science used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can store/release, Co2 can only store 7% of the heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. This is minuscule, especially when compared to water vapor which can store 850% more heat then Co2 can. Fact 2: There is not much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the rest of the earths history and history tells us there is little to no correlation of temperature to Co2 over long periods of time. It is as simple as looking at this graph: http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 3: Almost every single planet in the solar system is exhibiting some sort of characteristic attributed to warming. If every planet is warming simultaneously, then why is Earth warming not natural. (For more info check the comment section where there was a mini debate on the subject or my previous debate where I explained the attributes each planet it expressing) Fact 3: There has been no significant warming in the last 20 years. We have already discussed this topic and my opponent brought up a good argument against it but I disproved it in my last argument (and the comment section). (Keep in mind that in the last 20 years 25% of all Co2 released by man has been released during that period) Fact 4: The Earth has been warming for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick started in the 1700's, before the industrial revolution. https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com... Fact 5: Sun spots and ocean currents correlated stronger with temperature then Co2 for the majority of the 1900s. Yes, sun spot numbers decreased towards the end of the 1900s but that is also right before temperatures flat lined. Sun Spots Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) )is .57 1900-2004) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu... Ocean Current Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation here is .85 1900s-2007) http://i0.wp.com... Co2 Graph: (According to Joe Bastardi the correlation (not on this exact graph) is .47 1895-2007) http://zfacts.com... Fact 6: Cosmic rays prove that greenhouse gasses do not have a big impact on the atmosphere. Cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other variables in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong. Fact 7: Almost every single climate model prediction warming from Co2 was wrong (see earlier argument for graphs) Fact 8: There is no way to scientifically test, through a controlled experiment, whether Co2 causes enough warming to drive the atmosphere. You can test that the Co2 is a greenhouse gas, but you can't test that it is a strong enough greenhouse gas to impact global climate. This just proves that the idea that Co2 causes warming is not based in science. It is based off of faith in computer models or flawed logic. In conclusion, I have now proven, beyond any doubt, that Co2 cannot be the main climate driver. I have given historical evidence, explained the flaws in the logic presented through cosmic ray induced cooling, shown how Co2 driving climate can't be scientifically tested, explained how we are not the only planet experiencing warming and described how much stronger other climate drivers are then Co2 by presenting correlation strengths of each driver. My opponent has effectively given up the argument and accused me of distracting the readers from the problem at hand. As you can see, just by reading the 8 facts listed above, I have not distracted, I have not manipulated. I have provided clear, easy to understand, proof to why my opponent is wrong. I have disproven all of his arguments, whether in the comment section or in my arguments presented above and given countless examples of evidence to why my side of the argument is correct. Thank you for reading this long debate and I hope you are certain of the right choice when you vote. To my opponent: I will be very surprised if you are reading this because it seems you have been ignoring my arguments from the beginning. You are so biased towards your own opinion that I am surprised you even decided to read any of my arguments instead of saying, "oh, he didn't separate the lines into enough paragraphs!" and ignoring them. I have looked at your past debates and concluded that, while you have done a good job at defeating some people, Retroz and maybe Epidexipteryx have both gotten the better of you. Even in your past debates (including the ones you have won) you have not been able to prove anything you claim. You attack sources, you focus on grammar, but you don't focus on your argument. This is why you attacked the whatsupwiththat website without providing any actual evidence showing the data I presented from it was wrong. In fact, you even admitted it was right! This just proves that attacking sources doesn't get you anywhere with your argument. Just a side tip, if you are going to attack anyone else's sources in future arguments, skeptical science isn't a trustworthy website either. It is run by John Cook who is known for manipulating and masking real information as he did with the 97% consensus. Go to 3:02 in this video or watch the whole thing: Here is an article saying the same thing: http://www.forbes.com... Keep in mind that this renders almost every single one of your arguments useless so if this debate actually focused on how credible sources are, I would instantly win. I thank you for participating in this debate, it was very fun, and I hope that we can both part from this as friends (or people that know each other online and happened to do a debate together whichever you prefer)

Taking a Stand Against Climate Change with Greener Technologies

Global warming is real and is a threat It was implied that there was global warming, because if there wasn’t this debate would be futile. Hence my wanting to bring it up. My opponent has claimed there has been no rapid changes in climate before. This is untrue, according to the 1995 IPCC our warming really isn’t unusual at all. So my opponent and I agree, on balance it has warmed since the 1800s, but we differ on when it stopped. My opponent has been vague on the 1995 tipping point, saying it is a true statement but we are seeing the effects of global warming. This makes little sense, however, because if global warming stopped over 10 years ago why are we seeing the effects now? Regardless, the hurricane theory is a weak one. In the 1990s, for example, hurricanes were rare and not intense. Since the 1940s, the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory finds that the number of hurricanes and the intensity of hurricanes have actually been falling [1]. In the past 50 years, not one decade experienced an above average amount of hurricanes (7 is the average – where we are in our current decade). Within the last 50 years, an average of 5.6 hurricanes hit the US. In the 50 years before humans supposedly began to cause global warming, the average was 8.4 hurricanes—an overall downward trend [2]. Since 1900, the US hurricane intensity trend has flat lined, and decreased since the 1950’s intensity has fallen [3]. My opponent has also argued Global warming has caused droughts. Plotting the drought severity index over the last 60 years, a new paper published in Nature shows little trend in droughts throughout the world [4]. My opponent links GW to the dust bowl, which is actually odd: even climate scientists arguing humans caused global warming claim we had no impact on climate until the 50’s, after the dust bowl ended. The cause of the dustbowl, although partly not enough water, was also caused by overgrazing and over farming, wearing out (and drying out) the soil, leaving the land with little vegetation giving way to large sandstorms. Land cultivation tripled in the 30’s, causing the plants to wither away. Then drought struck, leaving over cultivated, dry, weak soil, none of which caused by man made global warming [5]. When narrowing down to the US, our precipitation (on balance) has been increasing and droughts exhibit no trend [6]. 2. Humans are the cause of Global Warming My opponent has argued past climate changes prove CO2 is the cause, however when you look at the data there is actually no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temperature changes regardless of CO2 levels. Using past historical trends actually refutes my opponent’s argument. Many studies done through ice cores show co2 lags temperature, in other words temperature rises before co2 rises. Lets look at these studies: Pearson and Palmer, 2000: They show co2 was about 3000 ppm 60 million years ago (mya) with a 0.3 oxygen isotope ratio. However, 13 million years later, the co2 dropped to 500 ppm; the oxygen isotope temperature dropped to zero (meaning a rise in temperature). Temperatures rose as CO2 drastically fell. Pearson and Palmer 1999: 43 mya it was 5 degrees warmer Celsius, but co2 concentrations were only 385 ppm, below our current concentration today. Pagani et al., 1999: this study found 150 mya cot concentration was only 180 ppm, but it was 6 degrees celcius warmer. And the studies go on and on [7]. Past temperature records fail to prove global warming is caused by CO2. Now, if warming is a natural cycle (I have shown how CO2 correlates poorly, but natural factors correlate much better) then the methane melt will happen regardless, and cannot be stopped. This is only significant if my opponent can argue global warming is driven by human emissions. And it is interesting, my opponents only data point for this I that they are melting too fast. When looking at glacier melt, worldwide there is no overall trend. For example, southern glaciers seem to be melting (Europe wise) but northern ones seem to be growing [8]. Interestignly, glaciers have been melting since 1850. And although arguably still losing mass, the amount they lose each year shrinks. According to Dowdenswel et al., 1997, “Hence, although these Arctic glaciers continue to lose mass, as they have probably done since the end of the Little Ice Age, they are losing smaller amounts each year, in the mean, which is hardly what one would expect in the face of what climate alarmists incorrectly call the "unprecedented" warming of the latter part of the twentieth century.”[9] 3. Fixing the problem I agree we cannot just drop fossil fuels, if we change anything I recommend it is slowly, and preferably to nuclear. My opponent, however, makes weak points and are merely asserted. He does not prove renewable will become cheaper. It would be unlikely, as stated, though. Wind, for example, has no value (unlike fossil fuels). Many good alternatives (like hydro) have been taken out of the picture due to river destruction and invasive buildings (so its not really good). Wind and Solar are inefficient, and current subsidies are costing millions merely for failed companies to fail. These green energies fail to compete with fossil fuels because of their failure to be a viable option [10]. My opponent has conceded my points to be true but argues green energy will, in the future, be viable without little proof. I would also like to note the resolution is in present tense, so unless he can prove green energies will be viable soon or beneficial now he has lost this point. Obviously we should not brush aside these sources, but combating climate change with them at the current time, and in the near future, would be illogical. Here is my solution: nuclear power. Its not a renewable, so I am not conceding the resolution, and it is “green”. I only support it due to its efficiency and ability to compete. If we cut down regulations, this solution would work (if you are worried about CO2, and if you’re like me: it would work if you are worried about our economy). Conclusion: I have proven (1) CO2 is likely not the cause of global warming, (2) even if it is, global warming is not dangerous and will likely benefit mankind (see round one, too)[11], and (3) combating global warming, a natural cycle, would be frivolous, and even if it is real green energy would be illogical and non-renewables such as Nuclear should be preferred. 1. http://www.ncpa.org... 2. http://www.forbes.com... 3. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 4. http://www.nature.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 7. Here is a sample of the studies: http://www.co2science.org... 8. http://www.co2science.org... 9. http://www.co2science.org... 10. http://www.cato.org... 11. My source from last round, proving global warming might not be that bad and might help mankind. I just wanted to bring it up again: http://www.stanford.edu...

Climate Shift

Pro has accused me of insulting him, I have done no such thing. Quite the opposite has been demonstrated by pro. Twice he has made comments focused on my person and not the argument at hand. "What a surprisingly short response" "What a rude and poorly thought response" Perhaps I should not have accepted this debate, but after seeing how Pro had attempted to set up a "slam dunk" format that included 2 out of 3 points that are impossible to argue against. 1) global warming is real. I reiterate that the FACT we do not currently live on a frozen planet is impossible to argue against. The FACT that ice age specialized species such as the wooly mammoth are now extinct because the ice age has ended can NOT be argued against. Pro's first point does not actually require intellectual debate. 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. This is equally irrelevant as Pro's first point. Regardless of the cause of climate change, be it man made or a natural cycle, it is our instinct to survive. This point is stating the obvious. In closing I wish to reiterate that this debate's only arguable point was #2, is climate change man made. I accepted this debate anyway in an attempt to overcome the obvious "slam dunk" framework that Pro had stacked in his/her favor. Furthermore Pro's entire argument about point #2 was based upon a consensus that doesn't exist unless you exclude 66% of published papers on this issue thereby cherry picking your statistics. The huge wall of info graphics and other data provided by Pro amounted to a fear mongering lecture of pseudo scientific prophecy. We don't even have accurate climate change models that predicted the 20 year pause in global warming, until after it was already observed and we adjusted our old models to account for this new information. Because of this, Pro's predictions about the year 2100 can even be taken seriously nor are they relevant to the only arguable question in this debate. Is climate shift man made... I trust the voters will see through Pro's attempt to manipulate their emotions with prophecy of doom.

Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change

I understand the argument. First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but First, 2050 is a projection given by Bill Gates for zero emissions throughout the whole world IF serious and drastic changes are made in reducing of C02 levels. It's not that they wouldn't take effect until 2050 but rather that humans have to work very hard to reach that point by 2050. I did not mean to attack that specific part of the argument but I just wanted to make that clear. Now, with that being said, this ties into my argument which is that global warming is a greater issue than poverty. That is, global warming is effecting us now, as I have said before. Drastic changes are already being made right now in order to make an attempt at reaching that goal of Zero C02 emissions by 2050. So, I must make it clear that climate change is a problem that is effecting all humans, right her and now. Some current effects of climate change are... -Increased coastal flooding and sea level rise. -More damaging wildfires. -More severe droughts. -More severe deforestation. -More severe health risks to humans by pollution. ...Just to name a few http://www.ucsusa.org... -This website run by the Union of Concerned Scientists evaluates the situation properly. So, as far as the immediacy of this issue I would argue that is is more so than poverty because it effects everyone one on Earth and mostly because it takes LONGER to fix. Poverty is an immediate issue currently effecting many people but climate change is also immediate and will take much longer to resolve. Finally, I would also like to state that the solutions for climate change coincide with the solutions for poverty. Just as an example, the Tesla Power Wall allows consumers to store energy that is collected by solar panels, and use it anytime they want. This will prove to be extremely useful for underdeveloped areas which are not anywhere near a power grid. In reference to that statement, I argue that solving the climate change issue first would be more beneficial to the human race than attempting the vice-versa option which you are arguing. While I agree that educating people will lead to the reduction of global climate change, I think that by the time every underdeveloped country catches up in education, it will be too late for the earth. With that, I do believe that global climate change is a greater issue than poverty, and that focusing attention on that would be better for the human race.