args

Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

If there are any changes humans are not responsible for them. The sun is responsible for temperature. It is possible that temperatures have been increasing slowly for the last 10, 000 years due to the sun and Earth cycles. Humans only represent a tiny fraction of the Earth's mass and are therefore, Incapable of altering the overall temperature on Earth. Humans represent only a mere 3 grains of sand on a beach which is 100 kilometres long. Thus, It doesn't matter how much heat that these puny life forms give out it will never be enough to effect the rest of the planet. The problem being that humans have huge egos which don't allow them to see what the proper order of the universe is. Thus, Humans believe that they can alter the climate of the Earth by their actions. This is only a self delusional fantasy and over estimation of the size and importance in the scheme of things.

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1 ========= Up Front Costs Are a Waste You rescinded any claim to P savings after Q spending. Your only source that warming will ever end is the term "eventually. " 3 ========= There are no solutions You respond that "Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. " Low level research into everything (including the climate) is getting done. This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to various folks to see if they can make some miracles. If somebody somewhere in the world ever actually finds a possible solution, The USA (and all nations) should make a deliberate choice about how to implement it. If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would change their tune at all. They would still say the sky is falling and spout their moral imperatives to "keep the climate stable. " This politics of alarmism worked for the first decade or two, But now it fails to generate enough public support to rise beyond low priority. Therefore, Since costs to date have made zero progress so far (I call them a "bottomless pit"), The USA should keep its Q investments low. Source: According to "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017" on the Climate Policy Initiative. Between 2012 and 2016, Just under $2T USD was spent, Including government and private investments.

Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

To address them as efficiently as possible, I am listing Con's round 2 sources in my own list of round 2 references: sources 32-34 are mine, and sources 35-57 are Con's. Logical Fallacy: Fallacy [27] "You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." [27] "Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." [27] To express Con's use of this Fallacy, I expressed the difference between making an error in the trajectory of Celestial bodies and concluding that Newton's calculus does not work. Con's response? "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" - Con. Just one question - did Con honestly click on my 27th source? Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or "ignoring every argument." Ad Hominem ignores the content stated by an individual to attack their character. Logical Fallacies are based solely on the content stated by the individual. Misrepresentation and The strawman fallacy [28] "By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate." I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes. Con's response: "Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any." Is it fair to say this constitutes the misrepresentation of the concerns I represent in this debate? Could we perhaps call this a "dropped point"? Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart. This shows stark contrast from Con's statement that scientists have not defined what is "normal" or "optimal" when discussing the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere. These concentrations correllate with the following temperature anomaly readings of the last 130 years [32]: The image from [32] "NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus" shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years, versus the plateau in 'temperature' that was previously discussed. Temperature anomaly is the deviation from expected temperature, and as Con's Solar Radiation sources so helpfully pointed out, we would expect the slight cooling of the sun for the past decades to be associated with a decrease in temperature. The scientific organizations listed in image 3 regularly produce definitions of what is "normal" or "optimal" temperature. Actually, negative 18 degrees Celsius is what the temperature would be without the greenhouse effect [34], so obviously we exist in part because of greenhouse gases. While celebrating their existence as a factor of ours, we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature. Clearly, the latest spike in CO2 readings and temperature anomalies are more than "natural," and I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade. 32. http://climate.nasa.gov... 33. http://climate.nasa.gov... 34. http://www.columbia.edu... 35. (con) http://www.badscience.net... This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures. 36. (con) http://www.businessinsider.com... This is about religious predictions being wrong, and Con is hoping that it disproves scientific theories on climate change. 37. (con) http://t.co... This concludes that increasing CO2 has disproportional and "complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities," and con is hoping it will show that CO2 emissions are good for the environment. In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic. 38. (con) http://t.co... This explains the counterbalance of the greenhouse effect by the fertilization effect, and con hopes to show that it disproves the greenhouse effect. Actually, despite the increased foliage that responds to the greenhouse effect, if anything, this article proves the greenhouse effect. 39. (con) http://t.co... This also shows that foreresty increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is also an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect. 40. (con) http://t.co... We are truly repeating ourselves, as this also shows that forestry increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is an empirical measurement of greenhouse gases. 41. (con) http://t.co... "Contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time." Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels. 42. (con) http://t.co... This shows that CO2 is not the "primary" driver of temperature, but as shown in images 2 and 3, climate theory relies on "temperature anomaly," which compares temperature predictions to actual temperatures to control for multiple variables. 43. (con) http://t.co... This is part of this research article: http://t.co... , which concludes that "antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations." Con's claims is that we're still uncertain whether temperature affects CO2 levels or whether it is the other way around. 44. (con) http://t.co... This shows that temperatures affect CO2, not the other way around, and absolutely, but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog. Our discussion of financial incentive and social popularity is key here, because rather than being based on peer-review, this is based off view-count and quite possibly anonymous funding. Note her motto, "hate to see a good civilization going to waste," playing on the age-old rivalry between environmental and business movements. 45. (con) http://t.co... This shows that global temperatures underwent variation before the industrial age too. Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures. 46. (con) http://en.wikipedia.org... This shows that an extreme temperature jump occured 6,000 years ago. Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove. 47. (con) http://t.co... This suggests that the ozone layer on the road to recovery, which Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone. 48. (con) http://t.co... Con probably meant to demonstrate that doubling the CO2 can only change temperature by 1 degree F, because that's indeed listed in this source, but it's listed as a myth. 49. (con) http://nsidc.org... Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal, but this article states, "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2013 was 5.35 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles). This was 1.17 million square kilometers (452,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent." 50. (con) http://t.co... Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast. I'm talking about scientific theory, not Al-Gore's presidential platform. 51. (con) http://t.co... See explanation for [50]. 52. (con) http://t.co... "If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause." It's pithy, and it's non-scientifically simple. It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]. 53. (con) http://www.sciencedaily.com... See [38]-[40]. 54. (con) http://www.nature.com... See [53]. 55. (con) http://oceanworld.tamu.edu... See [54]. 56. (con) http://t.co... This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade. 57. (con) http://t.co... This shows that energy in oceans has been increasing overtime.

it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

by catholic church standards, it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate the pope said a person shouldn't vote for prochoice politicians unless a proportionate reason exists to vote for them. this could include not just bigger genocides, but also the idea that voting on the issue of abortion likely wont change abortion. prolife presidents get elected, but not much changes. there's not enough people who are prolife to justify keeping voting on that issue alone, arguably.

Governments should require that funded climate data be posted

I am having trouble figuring out what Con is claiming with respect to the contentions. He says "By refuting the negative results that most likely would result were the resolution be adopted, I have refuted the entire premise of the resolution and have thus responded to the debate challenge." But "refuting the negative results" of the resolution amounts to affirming the resolution. Surely Con doesn't want to affirm the resolution, so what I am supposed to make of what he says? He leaves my contentions largely unrefuted. Con understands correctly that the resolution requires that raw data be published within one month within the results of analysis. He asks, "wouldn't analyzed data also have to have been collected?" Analyzed data is what is published, so it is always disclosed. Thus for example, the raw historical temperature data showing the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) would be required to be posted on the Internet along with the processing software that removed the MWP to yield the hockey stick graph in which there was no climate change prior to the last few decades. Under the current rules, only the result in which past climate change was removed is revealed, and it took scientists a decade to dig out the steps by which the MWP was made to disappear. Con claims that, "To assume this would eliminate (or even curtail) errors and/or ambiguous data or skewed results is pure conjecture and unsupported." Con's clam is false because (a) I gave an important example, the hockey stick controversy, in which a serious error was revealed once the requirements of the resolution were met, and (b) the peer review process, long the basis for scientific publication, is enabled by the resolution. The resolution requires that information available under the Freedom of Information Act in the US and Britain be produced on a timely basis, rather than be subject to indefinite delay. It is not unsupported conjecture that peer review uncovers errors in general, nor is it conjecture that the process embodied in the resolution uncovered the major error in the hockey stick graph, with the result that the hockey graph was removed from the 2007 IPCC report. It is also not conjecture that CRU, perhaps innocently, erased the climate source data requested under a British FIA request, and that after nearly three years NASA has not responded to a FIA request for source data. If the method of the resolution is put into effect, the data disappearances and indefinite delays will be ended. Con suggests that the data and software only be given only to "bona fide investigators" rather than to "pundits." This suggestion does not respond to the history I have cited in which CRU and NASA did not in fact provide the data for review by bona fide climate scientists, claiming they lost the data or that they are unable to reconstruct the analysis or using various other excuses. In the Climategate e-mails, CRU scientists speak directly of subverting the peer review process so that their work will not be subject to scrutiny. The CRU and NASA scientists have no worries whatsoever about the general public or "pundits" receiving the data, because only scientists are capable of unraveling what CRU referred to as "tricks" used in processing the data. finally, there is nothing that prevents a scientist from also being a pundit. CO2 crisis advocates are often prominent pundits. Just produce the data for all to see, without a bunch of nonsense obstacles. The Medieval Warm Period was about as warm as the present, but it was made to disappear entirely from the historical record of climate through the the use of mathematical techniques claimed to be good science. It took substantial expertise to discover the errors. Every effort was made to keep the hockey stick data from qualified scientists. (The history of the hockey stick and it's unraveling is well covered in Plimer's book. http://www.amazon.com... ) The way that peer review is currently avoided, as it was avoided in the case of the hockey stick graph, is to provide the papers and the data only to believers in climate crisis, who then provide only a cursory review. The work is not made available to review by skeptics prior to publication, and after publication the data is not produced voluntarily for review. FIA requests must be formally filed, and those are often ignored or resisted. Con implies that there is some threat to national security involved if data is published. There is none. For example, there are currently about 770 scientific papers supporting the existence of the Medieval Warm period, and they include work form Russia, China, and every corner of the earth. Con cannot site a single matter of national security involved. Con claims, "If all communications between parties engaged in climate-change research were to be made public, free and uninhibited discourse between these parties would be severely curtailed." The resolution does not require the publication of any e-mail or correspondence. It does not require disclosure of preliminary results of any kind. The resolution requires on that when results of climate analysis are published voluntarily by scientists, that the supporting raw data and processing software be posted within one month of publication. CRU wanted to keep their e-mail about subverting peer review secret for fear a hacker or whistleblower would reveal it, but the present resolution would not affect private e-mail. The resolution only concerns data and software, and then only when results are announced. Con argues "One has to duplicate perfectly the entry of that data and the parameters surrounding the software within the specific computer as well as being equally conversant in the operation of the software as its creator." Yes, that is why software configuration control systems are used. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a solved problem. There is no version of good science that does not require reproducing results. There is no concern that unqualified people in the general public will critique climate research software. The general public cannot comprehend it. What CRU and NASA are worried about are the critiques of well-qualified climate scientists. And they should be worried, because in the past they have been caught cooking the books. Con concludes, "But to insist upon public disclosure of every keystroke and instance of data falling outside of the standard deviation model is to invite equally public defamation of the publishing party ..." But, of course, the resolution does not come close to requiring every keystroke. Rather, climate scientists advocating crisis theory made the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear from climate history. During the Medieval Warm period, grapes were grown in Scotland and Greenland was named for its greenery. During the Little Ice Age, the Thames froze over every year and winter festivals were held on the ice. But after processing by "sound scientific methods" a graph was produced that showed nothing happening with global climate until the last few decades. The data and methods were withheld from skeptical scientists and from the public who paid for the bogus research. The resolution only requires that scientists paid by the government to perform climate research disclose what raw data they started with, and how they process it to get the results they voluntarily choose to publish. I'm sorry if they don't like to show their work, but most of us had to do that starting in grade school. climate research is too important to let it be concealed, only to have it ultimately drawn out by lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Let's do it up front and get on with it. The resolution is affirmed.

Trump not swayed by G-7 leaders on Paris climate deal

President Trump resisted some intense lobbying by leaders of other industrialized nations Friday to back the Paris climate-change agreement at a G-7 summit in Sicily, Italy.

it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate the pope said a person shouldn't vote for prochoice politicians unless a proportionate reason exists to vote for them. this could include not just bigger genocides, but also the idea that voting on the issue of abortion likely wont change abortion. prolife presidents get elected, but not much changes. there's not enough people who are prolife to justify keeping voting on that issue alone, arguably.

Chuck Todd Refuses To Give Air Time To Climate Deniers: ‘The Science Is Settled’

“We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it. The Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is a major cause. Period.”