args

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

To address them as efficiently as possible, I am listing Con's round 2 sources in my own list of round 2 references: sources 32-34 are mine, and sources 35-57 are Con's. Logical Fallacy: Fallacy [27] "You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." [27] "Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." [27] To express Con's use of this Fallacy, I expressed the difference between making an error in the trajectory of Celestial bodies and concluding that Newton's calculus does not work. Con's response? "I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" - Con. Just one question - did Con honestly click on my 27th source? Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or "ignoring every argument." Ad Hominem ignores the content stated by an individual to attack their character. Logical Fallacies are based solely on the content stated by the individual. Misrepresentation and The strawman fallacy [28] "By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." 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. Con's response: "Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any." Is it fair to say this constitutes the misrepresentation of the concerns I represent in this debate? Could we perhaps call this a "dropped point"? Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart. This shows stark contrast from Con's statement that scientists have not defined what is "normal" or "optimal" when discussing the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere. These concentrations correllate with the following temperature anomaly readings of the last 130 years [32]: The image from [32] "NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus" shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years, versus the plateau in 'temperature' that was previously discussed. Temperature anomaly is the deviation from expected temperature, and as Con's Solar Radiation sources so helpfully pointed out, we would expect the slight cooling of the sun for the past decades to be associated with a decrease in temperature. The scientific organizations listed in image 3 regularly produce definitions of what is "normal" or "optimal" temperature. Actually, negative 18 degrees Celsius is what the temperature would be without the greenhouse effect [34], so obviously we exist in part because of greenhouse gases. While celebrating their existence as a factor of ours, we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature. Clearly, the latest spike in CO2 readings and temperature anomalies are more than "natural," and 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. 32. http://climate.nasa.gov... 33. http://climate.nasa.gov... 34. http://www.columbia.edu... 35. (con) http://www.badscience.net... 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. 36. (con) http://www.businessinsider.com... This is about religious predictions being wrong, and Con is hoping that it disproves scientific theories on climate change. 37. (con) http://t.co... This concludes that increasing CO2 has disproportional and "complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities," and con is hoping it will show that CO2 emissions are good for the environment. In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic. 38. (con) http://t.co... This explains the counterbalance of the greenhouse effect by the fertilization effect, and con hopes to show that it disproves the greenhouse effect. Actually, despite the increased foliage that responds to the greenhouse effect, if anything, this article proves the greenhouse effect. 39. (con) http://t.co... This also shows that foreresty increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is also an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect. 40. (con) http://t.co... We are truly repeating ourselves, as this also shows that forestry increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is an empirical measurement of greenhouse gases. 41. (con) http://t.co... "Contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time." 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. 42. (con) http://t.co... This shows that CO2 is not the "primary" driver of temperature, but as shown in images 2 and 3, climate theory relies on "temperature anomaly," which compares temperature predictions to actual temperatures to control for multiple variables. 43. (con) http://t.co... This is part of this research article: http://t.co... , which concludes that "antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations." Con's claims is that we're still uncertain whether temperature affects CO2 levels or whether it is the other way around. 44. (con) http://t.co... This shows that temperatures affect CO2, not the other way around, and absolutely, but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog. Our discussion of financial incentive and social popularity is key here, because rather than being based on peer-review, this is based off view-count and quite possibly anonymous funding. Note her motto, "hate to see a good civilization going to waste," playing on the age-old rivalry between environmental and business movements. 45. (con) http://t.co... This shows that global temperatures underwent variation before the industrial age too. Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures. 46. (con) http://en.wikipedia.org... This shows that an extreme temperature jump occured 6,000 years ago. Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove. 47. (con) http://t.co... This suggests that the ozone layer on the road to recovery, which 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. 48. (con) http://t.co... Con probably meant to demonstrate that doubling the CO2 can only change temperature by 1 degree F, because that's indeed listed in this source, but it's listed as a myth. 49. (con) http://nsidc.org... Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal, but this article states, "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2013 was 5.35 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles). This was 1.17 million square kilometers (452,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent." 50. (con) http://t.co... Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast. I'm talking about scientific theory, not Al-Gore's presidential platform. 51. (con) http://t.co... See explanation for [50]. 52. (con) http://t.co... "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause." It's pithy, and it's non-scientifically simple. It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]. 53. (con) http://www.sciencedaily.com... See [38]-[40]. 54. (con) http://www.nature.com... See [53]. 55. (con) http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... See [54]. 56. (con) http://t.co... This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade. 57. (con) http://t.co... This shows that energy in oceans has been increasing overtime.

Jail climate change deniers.

We could also find out years from now that children aren't harmed in the production of child porn even though the evidence right now is substantial and overwhelming children are being harmed by child porn. Even though that remote possibility exists it does not mean we shouldn't jail child pornographers.

Jail climate change deniers.

We can't in good conscience risk the lives of potentially hundreds of millions of people because of an extremely remote chance the scientific consensus is wrong. You want both sides to be able to debate-- but there is nothing really to debate

global warming is real

Id like to start out my case by clarifying the topic is about humans causing global warming. Definitions: glob"al warm"ing noun a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants. Contention 1: 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. [2] [1][4] Contention 2: Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio [5] that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3] The vast majority of scientist believe it. Here's a graph of global temperatures that proves we have a problem. Conclusion: My opponent only made one point and failed to cite his evidence, therefore his point is invalid. I on the other hand cited all my points, and have presented significant evidence for man made global warming. This is why I believe you should vote pro. 1. National Research Council of the National Academies, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" (3.6 KB) , www.nap.edu, 2006 2.National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "Global Climate Change: Evidence - How Do We Know," www.climate.nasa.gov (accessed Apr. 26, 2010) 3.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" (19 MB) www.ipcc.ch, 2007 4.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Global Climate Change Indicators" (249 KB) , www.ncdc.noaa.gov, Apr. 13, 2010 5.Robert Andres, PhD, and Gregg Marland, PhD, et al., "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751-1991" (6.5 MB) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 23, 1994

climate change is fake

While you do have a point, it doesn't make sense. The American people tend to turn a blind eye to the topics that they are not interested. If the warming is not happening, how do you explain the strange temperature jumps that have occurred over the past few years? Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if there was no cause? As I have said, the American people won't focus on something if it isn't interesting or food. So the media spotlight drifted off to Oak Island and the Alaskan Gold Rush TV shows. The people don't care about it, so they don't pay attention. There's also something for you to think on. What happens to the chemicals that are emitted when gasoline and fuel burn? What happens when an oil rig goes down in flames, releasing hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the oceans? Coca-Cola can remove the rust of your car's bumper, what happens to all of those fumes? It's been proven that breathing in the burning chemicals poisons you, so where do the chemical fumes go?

The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

Lack of scientific understanding

The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

We’ve been here before