args

Climate change

Global Warming (or climate change in the hot way) is the thing. It is a win or lose election debate topic. It is also very contested in the public field (media). The IPCC states that it exists and that it is human induced. State intervention is often motivated by climate change concerns. However there are many scientists, people and companies that contest climate change or human induced climate change. They have interesting arguments. I believe that they are mistaken. I define human global warming as the abnormal and significant increase of mean global temperatures caused (in part) by human activity. I expect to win if i can show that 1 climate change (in the sense of global warming) exists 2 it is caused in a significant degree by human activity I consider that my opponent wins if he/she is able to negate either of the above. I will affirm 3 arguments to sustain my position: science cvasi-consensus, observable events in the world around us, mental experiment. At this moment there is near consensus between scientists that global warming exists and is human induced[1]. The scientific model is quite simple to understand and makes sense. It is clear that the weather is influenced by many factors, and some are more powerful than others. The greenhouse effect is a powerful factor as shown by the super greenhouse effect on Venus. [2] Green house gases have increased at the highest level in the last 650 000 years after the industrial revolution. [3] To bring the scientific argument down to the human level and to avoid an authority argument i will point out that ice caps are already melting, the first drowned polar bears were found, more violent weather is happening etc. What is more, the arctic ice shows an increase in carbon concentration and temperature.[4] The mental experiment part is more complex in the sense that it involves the concept of positive feed-back. The oceans trap carbon while they are cold, when they heat up they release carbon. This a positive feed-back loop and it means that things will only get worse.[5] . Humans have reached a level where they can affect the climate. Acid rains and other city related weather are examples of humans influencing weather. In conclusion, from the scientific, factual and mental experiment arguments I conclude that global warming exists and it is human induced. Looking forward for a good debate. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org... [2] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu... [3] http://news.mongabay.com... [4] http://www.heatisonline.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anthropogenic climate change.

R3 Rebuttals "In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. " Capitalistslave While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds. "4. Discussion Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ- ations where scientists ‘ . . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees ’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6] The reason so many articles have no stance is due to focusing on the unanswered questions as opposed to the answered questions. "In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it." Capitalistslave There are false positives and negatives. The same results do not need to be achieved with 100% accuracy. "The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. " Capitalistslave False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. "In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. " Capitalistslave .6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12] ""The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative" "Problems with CO2 emissions claims Since there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidenceâ€" that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth. " Capitalistslave Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10] "In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. " Capitalistslave The vast majority of the time, Co2 leads. This can be seen from the glacier evidence. The Earth tilts, rising the temperature, causing the oceans to release Co2. The release of Co2 into the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise further. We know this isn't happening now due to ocean acidification and more Co2 going into the ocean than out. " Marine National Monument, finds that sea-level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming, and other climate-related changes are expected to significantly affect the monument."[8] "Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles" Capitalistslave Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change. "11 944 climate abstracts from 1991â€"2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW," [6] 32.6% of 11,944 is roughly 3,000 scientific peer reviewed articles that support climate change. "there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming" Captialistslave Yes, there are negative feedback cycles too, like water evaporating, yet the positive is greater than the negative, meaning Co2 has an amplification effect. I will now reinforce that Co2 leads, natural Co2 cycles, and ocean acidification. "CO2 dissolves in waterto form carbonic acid. (It is worth noting that carbonic acid is what eats out limestone caves from our mountains.) In the oceans, carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions (H ), reducing pH, and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). " [9] As you can read, Co2 in the ocean must be increasing due to acidification of the oceans. [10] This further proves the Co2 increase is man-made. Milankovitch Cycles proves that Co2 leads. "As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999). The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming." [11] This also shows the positive feedback cycle of increased Co2. Despite being only a small percentage of the atmosphere. "In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount." [13] As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models. Finally, I will end with the amplification effect. "The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [14] This shows there is greater postive feedback than negative. Although, the exact strength of the amplificaon effect is still debated. Sources. 6. http://iopscience.iop.org... 7. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 8. http://www.noaa.gov... 9. https://skepticalscience.com... 10. https://skepticalscience.com... 11. https://skepticalscience.com... 12. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov... 13. https://skepticalscience.com... 14. https://www.sciencedaily.com...

Anthropogenic climate change.

Round four defense "The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8] As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. " Capitalistslave First, there would have to be counter evidence to withhold. I do not perceive that I withheld any evidence, any my opponent has not shown any counter evidence. My opponent has failed to meet his/her burden of proof by showing that there is evidence to withhold. Second, if any evidence is withheld it is weak, thus the fallacious of the argument is small. Third, there is the fallacy fallacy. "Form: Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious. Therefore, C is false. Exposition: Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious. " [15] Even if I did withhold strong evidence, it doesn't mean Anthropogenic climate change is false, all it means is my argument is fallacious. "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case." Capitalistslave True, climate change scientists are not infallible, but considering the scientific scholarly peer reviewed sources, the percentage of climate change scientist who support versus opposing man-made climate change, and the burden of proof is to be shared equally, I have more than met my burden of proof for showing the existence of man-made climate change. An alternative explanation is the USA court system. We do not require 100% proof to convict someone, instead we require a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and preponderance of the evidence in civil. I have shown in my round two argument that we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change exists. Finally, considering the scope of the entire world and global climate change, any direct evidence can be considered non-sequitur because it would add too little to support the claim. I would literally have to type 30,000 some characters to provide enough direct evidence to prove anthropgenic climate change. ""Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9] The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic." Capitalistslave The evidence may add very little and could qualify as non-sequitur. Yet, remember the fallacy fallacy. [15] More importantly, the scope of the entire planet is very large, so practically any argument I make giving specific examples could qualify as the last part of the non-sequitur fallacy. "adds very little to support to the conclusion." For example, the glaciers melting are just one small part of the entire world's ecosystem. Therefore, this could be considered a non-sequitur fallacy. Yet, evidence is cumulative. Individually the glaciers melting and the heatwaves might be non-sequitur, but together with a several more events and these would be significant enough to no longer qualify as non-sequitur and instead be a fully functional argument. Think of a bunch of straws in a haystack. Each straw could be considered non-sequitur taken individually, yet enough straws form a haystack. A person wouldn't dismiss the entire haystack as non-sequitur just because each individual straw adds little evidence for the conclusion, the existence of a haystack. Just as a person shouldn't dismiss small evidence that supports the conclusion, as long as there enough other straws to make a full argument. Now if my entire argument was just the heat waves, yes this would be non-sequitur, but considering the other evidence available that accumulates with the heat-waves, the heat waves cannot be dismissed. "In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. " Captalistslave There is many alternative explanations for this. One is that awareness of global climate change has increased, and thus governments and their people are more prepared to deal with such events. Another, is that technology has increased and therefore weather stations are better able to warn residents of the danger. "This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. " Captalistslave If I wanted to prove that an invisible gas like carbon monoxide existed, showing the amount of people that died from carbon monoxide annually would be an effective method. As humans we do not take lightly the deaths of our fellow human beings. People want explanations. I contend that showing that 150,000 people die annually from man-made global climate change is an excellent indicator of whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists or not. My opponent seems to have divided my argument into two charactories. Indirect evidence and direct small non-sequitor evidence. Dismissing the indirect evidence for not being direct, the 97% consensus, and the direct evidence for being too insignificant to prove man-made climate change. The direct and indirect evidence for anthropgenic climate change is massive. Just because, I did not directly show this massive evidence, does not mean I was incorrect. I decided it was best to give a brief argument from high quality sources. Knowing that the information is avaliable and nobody wants to read an extremely long debate. Thank you for your time and energy reading. Sources. 15. http://fallacyfiles.org...