Man Made Climate Change Is Fake
*Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of
"they" until the very end! :) Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations. His first
observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already
natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in
my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant
or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely
has an effect on climate. His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He
is correct in saying that a consensus is more scientific then a home experiment but
a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there
is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus. My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical
evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim. I run
into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other
evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence.
(keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature
and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not
always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions
made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority
of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong
with the models. In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid
case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards
the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light
energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end
of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays
cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect. My opponent then says,
"my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not
state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific
claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels
of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not
be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane. My opponent also says there is an undoubted
correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period
you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation
strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation
strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation
strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength
to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007).
As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is
anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time,
Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument
above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim: http://www.paulmacrae.com...
Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000
years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been
higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2
has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius
hotter then today. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com... Then, in my opponents fifth point,
he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air
from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural." This is
just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with
no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter
then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval
warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only
in the last 1000 years! Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are
irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political
arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that
is what they were planning to debate. In my opponents case he just states everything
that I have already disproven. He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is
a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere. He says
humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't
explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming
in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred
during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon
cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that
they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the
past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is
not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...)
Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease.
To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is
not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because
the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen
the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The
problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without
any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This
just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or
not. After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see
no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations
and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence. True
evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at
a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible. In conclusion,
I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
