args

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

I will point out the flaws in Mr. Merrill's arguments: This debate is entitled: "Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community" To that end, Mr. Merrill offered a simple challenge, but no definitions or ground rules for the debate. Because of that failure I offered definitions to clear up the "Anthropogenic Global Warming v. Global Warming" debate, and offered some of the arguments of AGW Alarmist and several Sources that argue against those claims. The rest of Mr. Merrill's writings largely ignore the argument, taking us from 20 points of contention to only 2. I then thoroughly deal with those 2 points of contention in Round 2, and reintroduce one previous point from Round 1, because Mr. Merrill did not address it. In Round 3, Mr. Merrill then, admittedly, misrepresents some data while dealing, again, with only 2 points of contention. Seeing Mr. Merrill's unwillingness to deal with the great many issues affronting AGW Alarmists, I provide several links that deal with his original claims; there being a lack of support for AGW Denial, and I reiterate one specific point of contention, and then deal with 22 of his specific claims. Mr. Merrill then changes tactic and provides some excuses as an attempt to deal with the Politicization of Climate Science. Mr. Merrill also provides 8 sourced quotes from AGW Alarmists/Activists. I replied with 9 sourced quotes of AGW Deniers and I point out a group of 13 ACTIVIST Scientists, 8 of whom worked on the report for the IPCC, and I gave a list of 10 Scientists who have left various groups (including the IPCC) over AGW "Science". Mr. Merrill does not deal with any of what was presented in Round 4, but instead, in Round 5, opts to try to convince the audience; using logical fallacies and confusing the definitions of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming. I believe I have show there is great support for Climate Denial in the scientific community; that the AWG Alarmist community is corrupted by politics and activism. Mr. Merrill wanted a 20:1 ratio of scientists; AGW Supporters v. Deniers. Someone would have to verify the actual count and remove the duplicates from all sources, as they undoubtedly contained duplicate researchers, but lets just make this easy: Mr. Merrill started out with 25 AWG supporting sources with a total of about 200 Authors. This is an average of 8 AWG Supporting Scientists per source. In a sample of 21 of my links (from Round 2), I found 29 peer reviewed papers including about 150 authors, for an average of about 7 authors per paper. This nets nearly a 1:1 (8:7) ratio of scientists who do and do not support AGW. Based on that alone I met and beat Mr. Merrill's challenge. This only leaves Mr. Merrill to deal with the 20 points of contention, of which he only tries to deal with 5. I believe I understand why Mr. Merrill refuses to deal with all the points of contention, or any of the support for natural and normal Global Warming: In the 4th round, I provide an additional link to this peer reviewed study, http://oss.sagepub.com... , which shows that a great many scientists are skeptical of AGW (I did not use this in my assessment of the 21 links in Round 2). I already pointed out how Mr. Merrill failed to deal with ANY points made in the 4th round. Therefore, the only conclusion I can make is; the support just isn't there in the quantity (and/or quality) Mr. Merrill would like or need to prove his assertions. In other words, his lack of dealing with the points of contention is proof his original assertion is wrong. Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, I was not arguing against Global Warming, as he asserts (Logical Fallacy: Straw Man). As I presented, Global Warming is a natural and normal process that we experience coming out of the last Ice Age (we are in an Intraglacial period, which Mr. Merrill also ignores). I have argued against Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Science Alarmism and Activism. I have provided an abundant number of sources against it, including several links to the data itself. And a great many scientists who are "AGW Deniers" simply by doing research that denies the Establishment's supposed "consensus". Review of the Points of Contention: Mr. Merrill claims: There is little support in the scientific community for AGW Denial: Claim proven false. CO2 causes Atmosphere warming: Claim proven false; Warming precedes CO2. Ozone: Ozone is repairing, not causing AGW. CO2 is warming the Oceans: Claim is Unclear, but the evidence, as provided, isn't showing Oceanic Warming. There is no Alarmism or Activism in the Climate Science Community: Claim proven false. Claims Mr. Merrill does not deal with: CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are today: Claim proven. CO2 levels are beneficial: Claim proven. Earth has natural mechanisms for dealing with increased CO2: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Cyclones: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Wildfires: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Arctic or Antarctic ice: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Polar Bears: Claim proven. Climate Change is not adversely affecting Sea Level: Claim proven. Climate Change is normal and natural: Claim appears to have been proven. There is a difference between "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and "Global Warming": Point proven. There is no "consensus" among scientists on this subject, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There is uncertainty, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven. There are other theories, largely ignored, for the observed Global Warming: Point proven. The rest of Mr. Merrill's Round 5 post was a poorly formatted table, where he, again, misrepresents the data, for instance: Example 1: Organization: heartland.org Authors / Researchers: 1 Scientific Accreditation: N AGW Acknowledgement: Y Heartland is a strong opponent of AGW, and proponent of Natural and Normal Global Warming. Therefore they do not "acknowledge" AGW. Did Mr. Merrill misread? Example 2: Organization: National Interagency Fire Center Authors / Researchers: Organization Scientific Accreditation: Established AGW Acknowledgement: Off Topic Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, this is very much "on topic" as the claim by the IPCC and Climate Alarmists is how AGW will make conditions more amenable to more fires that do more damage. The Observations do not support this conclusion. And the list goes on. I estimate I have about 2000 characters left in this reply, but I will not torture the readers with a full accounting of Mr. Merrill's latest attempt to avoid the discussion. This list as provided shows one of Mr. Merrill's greatest flaws: he takes things in a vacuum. Each point, in and of itself, is NOTHING without the rest of the information provided. For Example: CO2 concentrations are increasing. History must be observed: what has happened in the past? Has CO2 ever been this high? Does CO2 cause warming, or does CO2 come after the warming? Biosphere reactions must be observed: what happens when CO2 increases? What happens to plants? What happens to animals? What happens to the atmosphere? What happens to the oceans? Yet, with each point of contention that Mr. Merrill attempted to deal with, he is unwilling or unable to take into account all the information available. Therefore his arguments are very narrow in scope and shallow in content. In any case, Mr. Merrill, it is unfortunate that you spent most of your 50,000 characters avoiding the discussion. I was hoping to see new evidences, new information; and I was really hoping for a detailed and supported argument about the lack of support for AGW. Instead, I find myself disappointed by the avoidance, the abundance of Logical Fallacies, the lack of an actual argument, and the failure to follow good debating decorum. Good luck to you in whatever further arguments you decide to undertake; from my experience here, you are going to need it.

Protests have drawn attention to climate issues

Although there has been some attention focussed on the Camp for Climate Change the main press 'attraction' has been the protests outside bank and the antipathy towards city workers and capitalism in general. As usual the sensationalist press wants to cover violence rather than peaceful protest and with scuffles breaking out at Bank the climate protestors efforts have been overshadowed.

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

I am going to take manbars advice and just turn this into a he said she said debate. I believe my opponent is irrational. I say this because I have proven that Hydrogen will never be a fuel source for the world to lower Co2 levels. He continues to cling to and defend the writings of a book called the "Hydrogen Economy" I will tell you what the GNP of a hydrogen economy will be "0" And then my opponent goes on to believe the rest of what this man says even though the entire premise of the book is based on a complete fraud. Hydrogen is a novelty and will never be an alternative fuel source, I have proven this categorically and irrefutably but my oppenet still defends it. This is an irrational act, a complete inability to accept the truth and the laws of physics. With that said there is no other research or science that will be acceptable other than what supports his agenda, no matter how flawed or misleading or taken out of context. His source are the words of a god and mine are all just big piles of crap that aren't even worth considering because of some political reason and the content is obviously bought and paid for by some big oil company or someone with an agenda. But of course his sources are all absolute fact. Tigers are in the woods - tigers hate noise - I make lots of noise -there are no tigers in the woods. Co2 exists - the planet is warming - Co2 levels increase - Co2 causes warming. I have credible peer review research that says Co2 levels lag or only increase if the planet warms and then decrease when it cools. There is no credible evidence to prove that Co2 causes the planet to warm, only speculation. We have addressed cleaning up the environment and have spent billions of dollars doing it. Catalytic converters for cars, scrubbers for coal burning power plants, Lighter cars with better fuel economy, I could go on and on and on. You need to bitch at the rest of the world as we are the only country in the world that requires catalytic converters on their cars. You say we need cars that run on alternative fuel sources. Got news for ya they have all been built Hydrogen, Electric, methane you name it its been done. Only problem is no fuel to put in them. I will leave that responsibility on your shoulders and all of the rest of the environmentalists because you want to cut oil production before you have even found an alternative. And since you are going to make the rest of the world suffer by artificially inflating gas prices and making everything else cost more and there by liming everything and destroying the economy. I think the least you could do as an environmentalist is suspend your billion dollar ruse tax increases disguised as carbon credits and pay for all the research out of your own pockets. What is more likely using "Occam's Razor" All of the glaciers are going to melt if man does not cut Co2 emissions. There have been 100,s if not 1,000's of Ice ages and warming periods this is just another cycle and there is nothing we can do about it. Water vapor represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses Co2 represents at the most 2% Co2 is the primary factor for the planets warming trend, Not likely Melting glaciers lag behind warming trends by 100 years there is no correlation between Co2, glaciers and the planets current warming trend Climate researchers predicted in the 1970's that the planet would plunge into another ice age if something wasn't done. I guess we are saving the planet from another ice age by burning fossil fuels. Climate researchers record for accurately predicting future climates "O" Now all of the sudden 100% perfect accuracy and irrefutable. The answer to the title of your debate is simple: impose your environmental agenda on the world at any cost which is the current course of the environmental agenda and be damned the people and the suffering it will cause in the name of saving the world. My view on the title: Increase oil production to keep people and world economies going and do what we can if anything to look for alternatives and offer Gov't funded prizes to people and corporations who can come up with viable Ideas that will work instead of demonizing everyone and wasting money on pie in the sky P.R stunts like Hydrogen powered cars. There is no looming threat and the world is not going to suffer from these ridiculous predictions made by environmentalists and everyone else in the global warming dooms day agenda. I predict in 5 years that in third world countries that people who admit to being an environmentalist will have to ware a bullet proof vest. The environmentalist agenda is already hurting my ability to provide for my family by not allowing us to to drill for more oil on our soil causing oil prices to be artificially high. I can assure you of one thing, Nobody will care about the environment if they are forced to live in the conditions that dooms day environmental predict for the future if they have to live that way today, which is the path that is being taken by environmentalists today. Their agenda is going to back fire when people start dying in third world countries and they will have nobody to blame but them selves and god help you all if your dooms day predictions don't come true while Co2 emissions increase over the next 20 years. They will increase because the population will increase and more Co2 will be produced. Unless of course the real agenda of environmentalists is wholesale genocide by starvation. I would ask my opponent not to list any sources in his rebuttal as they are just as worthless as mine. Climate research is not science it is a political view point, No more time or money should be spent studying the climate it is a colossal waste of taxpayers money.