Climate change is a fraud
I still can't tell if you are claiming that the climate is not changing at all or
if you believe it is changing but for natural reasons rather than anthropogenic. Could
you please clarify this in your next argument so I know what I am arguing against
going forward? Now, To your arguments: 1. The 97% number may not be exactly on-the-nose,
But it is around that. The study by Cook et al. (2013) which is commonly cited as
the source of this number examined thousands of scientific studies on climate change
and found that 97% of papers which declared a stance on the question of whether humans
contribute to climate change took the side that we do. Later analysis by Cook and
his colleagues of his study and others determined the consensus was probably between
90 and 100%, According to Forbes. Critics, Like the one in the video you referred
to, Have attacked Cook for excluding studies which did not explicitly endorse anthropogenic
climate change, Saying they should be counted as "uncertain" or rejecting the idea.
However, Another study hilariously applied this logic to hundreds of recent geology
papers and found that 0% explicitly endorsed the theory of plate tectonics, Which
there is a scientific consensus on. That's because you don't have to declare that
you support a theory, Like climate change, When it is no longer in doubt. Other studies besides Cook's which found similar
results include Oreskes 2004, Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al. 2010 and Carlton et al. 2015. 2. The mass of humans vs. The mass of Earth does not mean we cannot effect
the Earth. We humans have made enough nuclear weapons to kill every living organism
on Earth depsite our mass being less than that of the world's termites. What matters,
In this context, Is the physical properties of greenhouse gases. Gases like carbon
dioxide, Methane and water vapor are penetrable to shortwave radiation (visible light
from the sun) but not to longwave radiation (thermal energy; heat). This is not a
property which can be faked, Or else it would easily be found out by independent investigation.
So when sunlight converts to longwave radiation, The heat gets trapped by the greenhouse
effect. 3. Atmospheric CO2 has no true saturation point; people who claim this based
on data have usually misapplied a linear scale to CO2 concentration. The severity
of CO2's greenhouse effect scales logarithmically, And if concentration is scaled
by logarithm, A constant increase in the greenhouse effect is apparent, As in this
graph: http://gallery. Myff. Org/gallery/171547/modtran-rad-bal. GIF 4. The corruption
of a single public figure does not negate the science. Maurice Strong was an oil tycoon,
Not a scientist. Anthropogenic climate change was actually discovered by environmental scientists working for Exxon in the 1970s
and 80s, But just like now, The oil companies didn't want to give up their ticket
to riches, So instead of switching their focus away from fossil fuels and toward renewables,
They started a massive denialism campaign to convince people that climate change was not anthropogenic. The science, However, Says otherwise. Here is just a sampling
of studies which support the notion of anthropogenic climate change: Karl and Trenberth 2003 Allen et al. 2006 Cayan et al. 2010 Barnett et al. 1999
Berliner, Levine and Shea 2000 (links removed because it was not letting me post with
them in) 5. Tree rings are not the only proxy used to estimate historic and prehistoric
climate trends--dating back even farther are the proxies of isotopic ratios in ice core samples
and mineral/rock composition of particular strata--but when used, They are very effective.
The trunk of a tree is actually made of secondary xylem, A type of vascular tissue
which conducts water. Temperature and precipitation can both effect the width of the
xylem tubes, Called tracheids, And how densely packed they are. A seasoned naturalist
can identify these differences in samples bored from living trees. By observing patterns
in xylem from recent years, When temperature and precipitation were measured precisely
by human instruments, One can reach a point where one can correctly describe the known
weather conditions from an area for a given year just by looking at a sample from
a tree. So none of the things you listed so far have debunked anthropogenic climate change or climate change in general. Do you have any other arguments you would like to put forth?
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
