args

Climate Change

I will argue that climate change is not man made. The pro will argue that climate change is man made. Structure R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Attack Opponent's Arguments R4: Defend R2 Arguments NO NEW ARGUEMENTS Must use sources in arguments. Also, Stupidape please don't accept this challenge. I want more people to be involved in this debate, not just you.

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

My opponent breaks their own rules by not rebutting my argument. Therefore it is an automatic win for the Con as my opponent can decide when they want to break the rules or not, leaving me at an unfair disadvantage. Instead of following their own rules and rebutting my claims, my opponent decides to strengthen their argument. This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this Instead of following their own rules and rebutting my claims, my opponent decides to strengthen their argument. This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this This creates an automatic win condition for the Con. Rebuttals: Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880: http://commdiginews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com... Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.: http://icons.wunderground.com... Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years: https://thelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com... Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle: https://logiclogiclogic.files.wordpress.com... Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014: http://www.worldclimatereport.com... This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too. It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the climate change threat is either nonexistent or being exaggerated. In conclusion, while I agree that rapid climate change poses a threat, I believe that this threat is being exaggerated and that humanity does not have to worry about extreme heat or any other natural disaster for much longer because once the world enters a natural cooling period all of this will be forgotten.

Climate change is real and caused by humans

Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments. Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere. Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together. The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun"s rays heats the Earth"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2. Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times. The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree. According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally. This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It"s not our fault we breathe, it"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere. Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago. So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed? Sources: http://scienceray.com...

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

I heard they don't let just anyone become Pope." You're right. The Holy Father must be holy and very wise. But keep in mind he's the head of a Church, not a Climate Committee. " I do see his opinion as having more weight than the average person." On spiritual matters, yes; he's the Pope. On climate change, not so much. He might have an edge, but he's no expert. He IS a chemist tho. "2. I disagree, it shows I am determined to defeat as many climate change deniers as possible." I'm a climate change agnostic. I don't think pumping carbon dioxide can be good, but I seriously wonder if humans really can change the weather. I think we're overestimating our influence. "3. ???" I know. "4. That's because of ozone destroying products like hairspray being phased out." Science is all about controls and variables. While it's true products like hairspray came around when the ozone hole began to shrink, other natural events were going on that could have been the cause. In a sense, if we look back on this as an experiment to find out what hairspray products do, we know our experiement would be tainted by other natural events, (climate involves the whole Earth) given that it has more than one variable Lastly I'm a dude. Have a good day

Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.

There is so much on this issue I don't know what to explain first. Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend. No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au... No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org... Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more) Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it. Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless. http://www.paulmacrae.com... Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around. Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au... Lags warming 3: http://i29.tinypic.com... Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years: Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com... (I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.) Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown. Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com... Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com... Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org... Fact 7: The Earth has been warming for 15000 (or 20000) years. Warming for 15000 (or 20000 it depends on the data) years: http://www.oarval.org... Fact 8: In the last 8000 years, we have had 4 major global warm periods naturally. We had the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Holocene maximum. All major warm periods: http://notrickszone.com... Medieval warm period was global 1: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... Medieval warm period was global 2: http://www.climatedepot.com... Fact 9: All major planet bodies in our solar system are experiencing rapid climate change, indicating that the heating on Earth could be caused by something in the solar system, not the planet. Mars: Ice caps are shrinking, two pictures showed possible warming (these could be unreliable due to dust storms), atmosphere is gaining clouds, ozone and water vapor (indicating warming). Pluto: Mysterious dark spots are becoming larger, atmospheric pressure increased by 300% (indicating warming) Saturn: Giving off x-rays, growing storm spots and other hot spots in its atmosphere (indicating warming) Uranus: Polar shifts, 2 large storms spots that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming) Mercury: Gaining a magnetic field, polar ice caps growing (indicating cooling) Jupiter: Plasma clouds merging together and growing new storm spots (indicating an 18 degree Celsius warming) Venus: 2500% increase in green glow indicating more oxygen in its atmosphere Neptune: Weird changes in light intensity. Earth: Rapid warming As you can see, every major planet in our solar system is experiencing rapid climate change. Scientists theorize that this is due to increased amounts of energy in the space around our solar system. Fact 10: There is no scientific way to test whether Co2 causes global warming. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data. Fact 11: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling. Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net... Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov... As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell. In conclusion, I have provided 11 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it. While my opponent gives links to a consensus and impacts of possible warming, I have focused on the argument at hand. Explaining why Co2 does not drive climate. While my opponent has made little to no argument, I have shown why the conclusions of the scientists in the consensus he listed were wrong. I thank my opponent for this debate, and may the best man/woman win!