args

Anthropogenic climate change.

What a disappointing debate. The instigator did not provide one thoughtful argument that mankind is causing climate change, only a source that sates 97% of government funded scientists want more funding to study the issue of CO2 causing climate change. Since, scientists just don't know what the cause it requires more study. Yet, alarmist activists want every human on the planet to reduce their living standards based on possible impacts. While, the respondent to this debate provided a simple common sense discussion about the small amounts of CO2 mankind produces compared with nature. Man's less than 4% annual contributions to CO2 emissions would be considered a measurement error in a science lab. If a scientist ran multiple experiments and only had a 4% difference between results it would be considered a success. Yet, alarmists are using this tiny amount as the basis of their argument. In any other context this would be laughed at. Most people that live in cities look around only noticing the tiny part of the planet that men have modified for their comfort. With mankind's continued fight against nature, it would take back the urban areas very quickly. Nature is a robust and complex system. The planet Earth has taken a beating in the past and will in the future. Life will survive, as well as mankind. For a person to state that nature can not handle a 4% increase of CO2 in a complex system is simply naive. The instigators responses were at best weak. The accusation of a cherry picking fallacy is fallacious at best. The total CO2 emissions were included to demonstrate the extremely small amount that mankind was responsible for. Thus, bring in nature's capacity to absorb large amounts of CO2 was not necessary. A 4% error in nature's absorbing capacity and all of mankind's CO2 has be removed from the system. Looking at the IPCC's numbers nature absorbs more than it produces. Using the alarmist's logic, if mankind was not producing excess CO2 the earth would be on the verge of global cooling. There is very few alarmist out there that would be calling for mankind to increase CO2 emissions in this case. Anthropogenic climate change on Venus is a tough sell but I'm sure welfare scientists have requests for funding in at this time. Mankind does not understand planet Earth, and have a geographic advantage. Any attempt at understand Venus' climate is a pretense of knowledge. It could be there is a lot of CO2 due to heat, instead of the opposite. In total, the con side of this debate has provided the best arguments against anthropogenic climate change, by simply pointing out the small amounts of CO2 emitted by mankind

Climate change is already costing lives

Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is. 

Climate Change Exists

Climate change is not real. In the past, The Earth has heated up and cooled down and the Earth is currently in another heating up spell. The ones who believe in climate change are the ones who are advocating for the fascist unification of the planet. They want everyone, Every man, Woman, And child to be unified under one singular global power, The global power that is the United Nations. The planet is just in another heat spell and will cool down in the future. The planet heating up is a way that God the Almighty is testing our faith. As technology advances, Millions of people are making the mistake to become atheist or agnostic. The ones who are sticking to God's teachings and remain faithful to him are the ones who will prevail when the rapture comes. Technology is clouding people's judgment from the truth and reality that God the Almighty preaches and teaches. Amen! So I stand in firm negation of the resolution.

Climate change is a fraud

Thank you for clarifying that for me! The reason I asked is because often times people who deny that humans cause climate change also deny that the globe is getting warmer. I knew you denied anthropogenic climate change, But I didn't know if that was because you thought the climate was currently stable. Now I know going forward that you accept that the globe is getting warmer, But not that humans cause it. So let's address your objections: 1. The fact that something is widely accepted as true does not mean it cannot be questioned. However, It is more reasonable to question things which do not have evidence supporting them. I am sorry I could not link the studies I mentioned above; it was not letting me post with all the links in it. I was also unable to post with the link to the 2013 study by Cook included, But you can find it at iopscience. Iop. Org (and other websites) if you search, With quotation marks, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming" on Google Scholar. This should bring you to the 2013 study by Cook which you have ridiculed. Scroll down to Table 3, And you will see that 10, 188 of the studies expressed support for the notion of anthropogenic climate change, Which is 98. 4% of those with a declared position and 34. 8% of all studies examined. The reason 66. 4% of studies expressed no position is the same reason 0% of geology studies examined in a separate study expressed a position on the theory of plate tectonics--it's not controversial. There has been so much evidence gathered that there is a consensus. Just like how physicists don't say "gravity is real" in every study they do. 2. As I explained, The human species has created enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all life on Earth even though we are a relatively small portion of the total mass. Viruses and bacteria are microscopic but can cause big effects (including death) in us. So being small does not mean you can have no effect. Note also that the mere fact that humans exist has not caused the globe to warm--it's the fact that we burn so many fossil fuels. In your analogy, You said, "It doesn't matter how much heat that those 3 grains of sand can produce. [T]hey are never going to effect the temperature of a 100 mile beach of sand. " Well, If humans are the grains of sand, That's actually a faulty analogy because humans don't release the heat that warms the globe. That comes from the sun, Which has a mass over 300, 000 times that of the Earth. 3. As I said, The greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 scales logarithmically, So of course there are going to be diminishing returns in the greenhouse effect. That's not the same as a saturation point because the heat trapped is still increasing, Just more slowly. I linked a graph in my last argument showing a clear linear increase on a graph with a logarithmic scale for CO2 concentration. Note also that the most potent greenhouse gas is water. Even though the warming effect of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases, The slight increase in temperature is enough to evaporate more water into the atmosphere. That warms the globe even more, Leading to greater evaporation of water and creating a positive feedback loop which exacerbates the warming. 4. The claim that every climate scientist is corrupt is so sweeping as to be completely unfounded. There are thousands of climate scientists all over the world; you can't expect every one of them to be bankrolled by special interests or be lying about their science to the public. You might, However, Expect a small minority to be corrupt, Which is what we see in the few who claim anthropogenic climate change is not happening, Who are often funded by fossil fuels or not scientists qualified in the fields they are discussing. 5. In regards to your claim about tree rings, Precipitation is easiest climate trend to measure with them, But temperature can also be estimated based on observed patterns. I don't think I can post more than one link, So I'll just refer you to NOAA's article "How tree rings tell time and climate history. " Inverting graphs is not a proxy--a proxy is a something which occurs in nature which provides information about the past, Like ice cores and geological formations. An inverted graph is an example of fraud--and one which can easily be caught by the process of peer review to stop such a study from ever making it into a reputable journal. So none of your arguments from Round 2 actually debunk climate change, But if you have any more examples, I would be happy to respond to them as well in the coming rounds!