args

The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

The beneficial effects are slight, and confined to the predominantly wealthy cooler developed countries. By contrast, any rise in temperatures will lead to devestating damage to hot countries around the equator which are almost all relatively poor developing countries. Not only do the harms massively outweigh any benefits, the harms hurt those worst off, the benefits those who are already the wealthiest and safest countries on the planet.

Man-Made Global Warming Isn't Real

I will begin with a few statistics and quotes from experts showing, unequivocally, that global warming has occurred. I will then move on to show that this effect is largely a result of human actions, technology, and the like. Next, I will provide quotes and sources specifically stating that the current level(s) of global warming could not be results of natural causes. Finally, I will address some of the arguments Pro is likely to make. I will point out that, at least in the past, he/she references sites such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", sources known to be some of the most biased that exist. On the other hand, the sources I reference are scholarly, scientific, and largely non-partisan. As the BoP is on Pro and he/she stated "man-made global warming isn't real", he/she will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (and refute all counter-claims on this topic) that none of the global warming that has occurred has resulted from human action. If even some of it has resulted from human action, it would, by definition, be "real". Global Warming Occurring - "Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal." - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. - The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. - Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. - Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier. - Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century. - The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. - The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost and average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade. - Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 - "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can." - Stephen Hawking - Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years. Sources: https://climate.nasa.gov... https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk... http://data.giss.nasa.gov... Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009). http://nsidc.org... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov... http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu... IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis Humans Are (at least partially) To Blame - "It is 'extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature' from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By 'extremely likely', it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans. - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report. - "Between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities." - US Fourth National Climate Assessment - "Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause" - UCSUSA - "Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia." - IPCC AR5 - "Of all the radiative forcings analysed, only increases in greenhouse gas emissions produce the magnitude of warming experienced over the past 150 years." - Berkeley Earth - "Today, CO2 levels are 40 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm this spring. In addition, there is much more methane (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 in the short term) in the atmosphere than at any time in the past 800,000 years—two and a half times as much as before the Industrial Revolution. While some methane is emitted naturally from wetlands, sediments, volcanoes and wildfires, the majority of methane emissions come from oil and gas production, livestock farming and landfills." - Earth Institute, Columbia University - "Today, almost 100 percent [plus or minus 20 percent] of the unusual warmth that we’ve experienced in the last decade is due to greenhouse gas emissions,” - Peter de Menocal, dean of science at Columbia University and founding director of Columbia’s Center for Climate and Life Note: Some of these conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities. Current Levels of Global Warming Not Natural - "If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies - "Volcanoes have a short-term cooling effect on the climate due to their injection of sulphate aerosols high into the stratosphere, where they can remain aloft for a few years, reflecting incoming sunlight back into space." - Zeke Hausfather - "Finally, solar activity is measured by satellites over the past few decades and estimated based on sunspot counts in the more distant past. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the sun fluctuates modestly on a cycle of around 11 years. There has been a slight increase in overall solar activity since the 1850s, but the amount of additional solar energy reaching the Earth is small compared to other radiative forcings examined. Over the past 50 years, solar energy reaching the Earth has actually declined slightly, while temperatures have increased dramatically." - Carbon Brief - “We have independent evidence that says when you put in greenhouse gases, you get the changes that we see. If you don’t put in greenhouse gases, you don’t. And if you put in all the other things people think about—the changes in the earth’s orbit, the ocean circulation changes, El Niño, land use changes, air pollution, smog, ozone depletion—all of those things, none of them actually produce the changes that we see in multiple data sets across multiple areas of the system, all of which have been independently replicated.” - Gavin Schmidt, director of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Potential Pro Argument Based on Pro's past debates on this subject, I know he/she is likely to make following arguments: "https://goo.gl...;Sorry, you were saying..." Many people debate the validity of this statistic/image, but we can put that aside. Global warming is about the long-term trend, not a single year-over-year increase in the size of a particular ice sheet. So, even if this is accurate, it is in no way sufficient in disproving the litany of sources cited above stating the long-term trend. Here is a Forbes article directly speaking to statistics of this nature: https://goo.gl... As stated above, Pro's other arguments often rest on sources such as "Right Wing News" and "Breitbart", a few of the least reliable, least scientific, least objective sources in the world. I would point voters to the much more reputable, scientific, and unbiased sources I have used in my arguments.

Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

First screw you and condescending snot nosed attitude towards me in defining climate, green house gasses and the green house effect. I don't have a problem with any of those definitions they are all naturally occurring things that enable the earth to have an atmosphere. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we have been burning fossils fuels in massive quantities. Right now the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 385 parts per million http://www.nytimes.com...... So lets see CORNELIA DEAN a columnist at the N.Y. Times who is such a crappy and incompetent reporter who so lazy that she cant even provide a source for the claim she makes in this article or even the name of the institution or names of scientists who provided the information. Let me let you in on something. You are going to have to provide peer reviewed research done by peer reviewed scientists in order to use it as a source. I have been ridiculed and chastised for not doing so and you will be to. There is no way for me to verify this information and who did the research. I will allow you to come up with another source that meets peer reviewed credentials in the next round. But for now it is a worthless source. "Now since we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas we know that it traps heat. Armed with this knowledge we can see a direct relationship between CO2 levels and increase in temperature." Please provide your source that proves there is a direct relationship between Co2 and rises in temps. "Along with burning fossil fuels we have harvested massive quantities of timber for paper and building materials. It is estimated that right now we are 100 times over the natural rate "http://news.mongabay.com...... Sorry but this is a blog and is worthless as a source. It is not peer reviewed. "The rain-forest right now is under half its original size and used to produce 20% of the worlds oxygen. The Taiga forest in northern Canada is just started to be seriously logged. Currently it produces 1/3 of the worlds oxygen." Again, what is your source. "Now to further add to the problem we have methane gas. Due to increased temperatures in the Arctic we are seeing a melting of permafrost. This permafrost is essentially rotting vegetation that has been storing methane gas for thousands of years. When you start to thaw out this frozen ground you start to release the stored methane. Methane compared to C02 has about 3 times the insulation power".http://www.terranature.org...... Another blog, again a worthless source. "We know that we have released massive quantities of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.These gases unchecked insulate the earth and create a rise in temperature.By eliminating our checks like the rain-forest we are eliminating our ability to remove these gases and increasing the temperature". What is your source. "Deforestation needs to be stopped and more environmentally friendly techniques must be taken. Like selective cutting rather than the clear-cutting Brazil is using today". This is an opinion "Carbon emissions must be lowered. This sounds like it might be a bit daunting at first but if we re-design the gasoline motor and make it more efficient we can cut back." This is an opinion Also in power-plants if we can lower waste hear (current waste heat for a coal fired power plant is close to 80% in some facilitates). Please provide source "Solar power is already being used and many die hard environmentalists are supporting more nuclear power because of the current situation." I don't have a problem with this statement although a "die hard enviromentalist" being for nuclear energy sounds like an oxymorn to me. "Now I would like you to now try and address these points that I have made. Please answer them and don't deviate and pull a straw-man. Stick to the current topic and points that have been brought up. Then we can move on to new points but only until you address all of mine first. Lets keep this civil and hopefully we will all learn something valuable." When you provide peer reviewede sources where indicated I will glady respond to each and every one. You must at the very least provide the scientits name or names so I can veryfy who they are and what their credtials are. I'm sorry but what's exspected of me should also be expected of you. I have had to many debates on this subject and have learned my lesson, now it's your turn.

Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

My apologies for the forfeit, my ability to devote time to a strictly recreational activity is limited, but I would like to continue the discussion in the forums where time-limits are not as dire. I will not introduce any new arguments in the final section, but I am going to dismiss Pro's concluding statements. Pro continues to maintain that "no one" can stand behind GCC. I provided an extensive list of the world's foremost relevant institutions, and they all stand behind GCC as good science. I do not wish to dilute this point in rhetoric, so I will leave it be. Our fossil fuel resources need not be wasted as Pro insists; there are other uses for it, after all. Perhaps China will not use us as an example, per se, but at the very least it would bring us out of the "complete hypocrite" position. We cannot make any headway as long as we are part of the problem. Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that Pro's rebuttal of my "consensus" of scientific institutions is suspect. I am honestly a little unsure as to what exactly he is trying to say: "if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed" - that seems to strengthen my position, doesn't it? His skepticism about climate modelling doesn't seem to be shared by the scientific community, so what exactly makes him smarter than the world's scientists? His Gieger counter analogy is unconvincing, as it clearly doesn't reflect, analogously, the GCC policy scenario. A more convincing analogy would involve efforts to curb production of radioactive substances, not the proliferation of tracking mechanisms thereafter. Pro goes into internal politics with NASA to discredit their conclusions, and claims they have "lost all credibility." Pro's claims are conspiratorial in nature; he seems to indicate that political entities are putting biased people in key positions to influence the scientific literature they produce. This "Climate-Gate" tactic is all that the right-wing has left to battle the overwhelming amount of research coming out in favor of GCC. They cannot defeat the scientific community, so they simply discredit them in the eyes of the public. Since scientists are by nature powerless, their "consensus" is moot and nothing that they propose gets done. Pro criticizes my sources, which are in complete harmony with what any scientific institution or university would maintain, yet uses laughable sources himself. Wattsupwiththat.com? Alex Jones? What is this stuff? The good sources he does use are mostly just to either quote the pro-GCC community or to make indirect points to base external conclusions off of (e.g., citing how much was spent on AIDS). He rebuts my plant evolution argument by referencing a wiki page which says nothing about plants not being able to adapt to Earth's C02 levels in time (would any person actually believe that plants are mal-adapted to their biological environment?). He insists he's quoted "literally hundreds" of articles, but to that I would only reiterate his point that consensus does not yield truth. In my case, at least my consensus is that of the respected scientific community.

Man made climate change is a myth

The science is open

Man made climate change is a myth

Science is self correcting

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

"Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns" Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any. Yes, there are those who believe that Science is all about hype, and they have done things like, scaring people about the MMR Immunisation (http://www.badscience.net...). Why do they do this? Simply, it makes them money. In my opinion, this is exactly the same thing happening in Climate Science these days. The movement supporting AGW is pulling in Billions, if not Trillions of dollars: for research (employment), for mitigation (legislation, taxes), and for advocacy groups (you know, to get the word out). Supporters of AGW don't really have much to stand on, yet, they continue on with the forecast of "doom and gloom" and the "end of the world". Looking at our short history in the United States, we have seen this before, with Religions: "10 Times The World Was Supposed To End And Didn't", http://www.businessinsider.com... Secondly, 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. Essentially, by ignoring every argument put to him, claiming the great many of them are "logical fallacies" of one flavor or other, Mr. Merrill has employed logical fallacies of his own; a subtle form of ad-hominem, and "Staying on Message" (he is hoping that repeating the AGW mantra will be convincing, which may be why he does not include any further information with his assertions). His defense also smacks of the "Blind Loyalty" fallacy. Regardless, I will stick to the facts, and if I have space, I will deal with his accusations, or as many as I can within the limits placed upon us in this forum. Atmospheric CO2: True, this is a concern of AGW advocates. The problem is, it isn't a real problem. Any view that takes into account only the last 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 years is a "short sighted view", and ignores much of the evidence that tells us about the "normal" or "optimal" state of this planet. To assume that we can somehow stave off a natural warming cycle is simple arrogance. Further problems with Mr. Merrill's argument can be shown in what happens when you apply higher CO2 concentrations to plant life: http://www.nature.com... http://www.climatecentral.org... http://www.theresilientearth.com... http://dailycaller.com... Remember the economist, Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, to say "the science is settled"? Well, it isn't. We still have scientists arguing whether the CO2 increases happen BEFORE the warming, or AFTER. That is a pretty significant question, one that seems to be ignored by the IPCC and other AGW activists. We always hear the CO2 concentrations are causing the Earth to heat up, but if the HEAT really happens BEFORE the increase in temps, it kind of deflates that assumption. http://wattsupwiththat.com... http://icecap.us... http://www.nature.com... http://joannenova.com.au... Just because we think, as our ancestors of old, that WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (or the most important life-forms on the planet), doesn't make it so, and reality must be considered at some point. There are events out there that could cause the extinction of the Human Race: meteor, super volcano, nuclear war... Only ONE of those do we actually have control over. (Well, we might be able to "shoot down" a meteor ... maybe... ) Realistically, we must look at EVERYTHING that the Earth offers us. ALL temperature extremes, ALL variables. We know man has survived some of those extremes for the last 200,000 years... without benefit of the "industrialization" and "pollution" (CO2) that is supposedly causing the same thing to happen today as has been happening our whole history. (the dust bowl, 100 year floods, storms, droughts, etc...) Looking back, we don't see "man made CO2" at the same levels they are today in the 1600s, or the 1700s... so what caused these phenomena? What caused the Little Ice Age? Or the Medieval Warm Period? http://shroudedindoubt.typepad.com... Interestingly, the name of the warm period about 6,000 years ago was called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Any guess why they call it "optimum"? http://en.wikipedia.org... This leads me to ask: 1) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the temperature of this planet. 2) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the CO2 concentration of our Atmosphere. 3) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing Sea Level. What is "normal", what is "optimal"? At what temperature is this earth, its ecosystems, and climate at their "best"? If we don't have an answer, there is no way to know what "abnormal" is. There is NO BASELINE from which we can judge. Atmospheric Ozone: Interestingly, every "doom and gloom" scenario brought about by AWG Climate Alarmists concerning CO2 has failed under scrutiny. The CO2 levels are INCREASING, yes, and the Temperatures have flat-lined. Increasing CO2 levels, and increasing Biomass in both the Oceans and on Land. Increasing CO2 levels, yet the Ozone Layer is recovering. http://www.esa.int... This is one of those "good arguments". It shows how science actually SHOULD work; as a solution, not a problem. Scientists identified the problems with the depletion of OZONE. They identified and defined a cause. We came to know and understand what was depleting the Ozone Layer. And, via the Montreal Protocol, Scientists worked to outline a way to fix it. Other areas, like CO2 levels in our atmosphere, aren't so well understood. Yet, today's scientists want to impose all kinds of restrictions, etc, in the same way as they did with Ozone, via the Kyoto Protocol, but without having a full understand of the CAUSE of the supposed warming we are experiencing. The Establishment has a mantra, "its all man-made", and they repeat it, often. Yet, there is very little evidence to support that position, unless you ignore HISTORY. In which case, you engage in a HUGE logical fallacy; Questionable Cause. http://www.skepticalscience.com... Oceanic: Mr. Merrill tries to call my pointing at the arctic and antarctic ice increase as a "logical fallacy". The problem? We have been told for years by AWG alarmists that the arctic ice is melting and will soon be gone. We have also been told that the arctic is disappearing, and with it, the Polar Bear. Anyone can pull the youtube videos, news reports, etc, that show how the Climate Alarmists have been using the logical fallacy, Appeal to Fear, to try to get us to "fall in line" and support the Establishment in their agenda driven science. What I have done by pointing out the growth in the ice sheets, is show that there is nothing new. Things are NORMAL. In the latest report, http://nsidc.org... , we see the Ice Sheet is currently within the standard deviation. It is NORMAL. AWG alarmists tried to use the Polar Bear by using the fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, along with the Appeal to Fear. Polar Bears are, after all, so very "cute". There are problems with the politicizing of Global Warming... we can see it here: http://polarbearscience.com... Something else to consider, with the past history of our planet, and the warm periods, including the aforementioned Holocene Optimum, how on earth did Polar Bears survive? Why aren't they extinct? If our simple warming, today, is enough for AWG alarmists to foretell their demise, why did they not die out when it was 4c warmer than it is today? They seem to have survived at least one but maybe 2 or more of these warm periods where arctic ice was all but gone. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This, again, shows a logical fallacy of Questionable Cause used by AWG alarmists. Real scientists have found the problem affecting the Polar Bear, (it wasn't climate change), it was MAN. They came up with laws and accords to help protect the Bears, and now their numbers are increasing (overall). Further, looking into the "storage of heat" in our oceans, the scientists are, again, baffled by the surprising lack of heat they seem to be storing. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com... CO2 concentrations do rise in the Oceans, and so does the Biomass: http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.nature.com... http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... Another issue is the lack of proof for the deep ocean heat retention, and the lack of historic information. To make any speciulations with so little information is disingenuous at best. http://wattsupwiththat.com... And all "conclusions" made, so far, are "inconclusive". http://judithcurry.com... Alas, no space to deal with Mr. Morrell's fallacious avoidance tactics using fallacies.