args

Climate change

The theory that CO2 is the dominant cause of global warming is based upon computer models that were derived under errant assumptions. The models have completely failed to predict the observed changes in climate. If CO2 was a significant cause of global warming, and CO2 theorists were correct that nothing else is presently affecting climate, then the predictions should have inescapably fallen into line. Over a period when the earth was supposed to warm by 5 degrees, it actually cooled by 3 degrees. In the history of the earth, the climate has warmed and cooled with apparent complete independence of CO2 levels. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were twelve times higher than at present. In the period of the Holocene Optimum, about 3,000 to 5,000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than CO2 models predict the earth will become in the future, but there was no human-produced CO2 to be blamed. The Holocene optimum was a time of human prosperity, and the polar bears paddled through it quite nicely. I presented scientific references in support of every one of these claims. Pro has not rebutted a single one of these assertions. He completely ignored most of them. Instead he focused on (1) asserting that the existence of the IPCC report proves a consensus among scientists, and that a consensus established scientific fact. He also (2) impugned the integrity of scientists who did not accept CO2 theory, claiming that the had all been bought off by the oil companies. Finally, he argued (3) that the climate on Venus proved that CO2 was a significant determinant of climate on present day earth. The IPCC Report The IPCC Report exists, however there is no evidence that it represents a consensus among climate scientists, or, more importantly that it represents the overwhelming consensus that Pro claims. I claimed that the IPCC was a political organization with only 30% of the members being actual climate scientists, that the report conclusions were written by a small number of people who required authors of individual sections to support their conclusions, that report was not subject to peer review, and that the contributing scientists were not allowed to vote on the accuracy of the report. Pro did not rebut a single one my claims; he only claimed that those criticisms were inconclusive. I provided reference to the book by Michaels on the IPCC process, the statements of John Christy (a lead author of the IPCC report), and the statement of Landsea, the hurricane expert who resigned in protest when the IPCC central committee changed his conclusion that hurricane activity was unrelated to CO2. Pro provided no contrary evidence. Climate change was recently debated by William Schlesinger and John Christy, both qualified climate scientists. http://www.johnlocke.org... Schlesinger claimed the IPCC report showed the kind of consensus Pro also claimed. Christy told the audience that as a lead author he knew it was political. After the debate, a question from the audience asked Schlesinger what percentage of the IPCC was composed of climate scientists. Schlesinger replied that there were many aspects to the science and that he didn't know for sure, but that "perhaps 20% had something to do with climate." This from a strong proponent of the theory. (Debate fans might find the whole debate worth watching. I think Christy won handily, and so did the audience.) The Integrity of Dissent Pro made the claim that the oil industry sponsored most of the research contradicting CO2 theory. I pointed out that NASA alone poured more that a hundred times Exxon's measly $1.6 million in the quest to prove CO2 theory. Counting all the sponsorship on both sides, the weight of sponsorship is undoubtedly many hundreds of times in favor of supporting CO2 theory. So I asked how it could be that opponents were easily corrupted, while proponents were immune. Pro did not respond beyond the implication that oil companies were evil. Beyond that I challenged Pro to explain how the peer review process for scientific journals allowed what Pro claimed to be bogus research to be published. Pro ignored my challenge and failed to provide any explanation as to how the peer review process was somehow corrupted. I think that scientists are subject to group think like others in society, but that the peer review process is fundamentally honest. Dissenting papers are published because they present data and analysis that stands up to scrutiny. Pro has no explanation that supports his theory of bogus science. The peer review process means that it makes no difference who sponsors research, the results stand on their own. Is Earth Like Venus? Pro originated the discussion of Venus, claiming that the temperature on Venus proved Earth's climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2 levels. I pointed out that 3500 times as much CO2 only produced a 150 degree rise, so it certainly didn't prove climate was sensitive to CO2. Pro responded that even though it wasn't sensitive overall, it might be sensitive at low levels. Yes, it might be, but is it? I presented a scientific paper that provided the physical basis for CO2 effects on earth, and then fit the actual data from the 20th century to the curve shape. The result showed that doubling CO2 on earth would produce less than a two degree temperature rise. In the detailed analysis, the curve on Venus would be different because (1) unlike Venus the dominant greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, and (2) the atmosphere on Venus is about 100 times as dense. One might expect Pro to respond with a scientific paper on the CO2 theory as applied to earth's atmosphere that derives a different result. He did not. Pro simply asserted he was correct. I have looked for such a paper and never found one either. This is consistent with my assertion that CO2 theory does not derive from any simple physical theory, but rather from tweaking multiplier coefficients in computer models. I also referenced climate scientists (Spencer et al) that tweaking is how CO2 theory is derived. Throughout the debate, Pro referenced dubious Wikipedia articles, blog posts, and popular press articles instead of articles written by climate scientists. I challenged Pro several time to reference scientists and to point out exactly where in his references I could find support for his claims. He did not respond to any challenge. --- Pro's asserts CO2 is "significant" if it justifies enacting cap and trade legislation. Since past warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the much warmer Holocene Optimum were prosperous times for humanity, by that criteria the resolution fails even if CO2 causes global warming in the amounts postulated by the latest IPCC report. Besides, cap and trade does not lower CO2 levels, so it is never justified. I would allow a lesser criteria for "significant," perhaps if half of global warming were due to CO2. If it were only half, that would be a devastating blow to the theory, since advocates claim there is no other source of climate change at present. If one looks at the observed climate data, it is unlikely that more than 10 percent is due to CO2. CO2 is increasing slowly and smoothly, but world temperatures are moving largely independently, with the last decade showing if anything a slight downward trend. If CO2 were to account for as much as half of climate change, the past decade would have shown a significant increase. The irradiance (heat output) of the sun also fails to explain climate change. Right now the best bet is that it changes in the sun's magnetosphere that drives climate. That tracks well with past and present climate. The Little Ice Age, for example, corresponded to a period of no sunspots. However, if that is not the significant factor in climate, then something unknown other than CO2, is. The resolution is negated.

Climate Change is man caused

Climate change is quite complicated and requires more than two minds. Climate change is happening, but is it man caused? Again, we don't know, but I have come to argue it is not. There was never enough research done on the natural causes of climate change, so we just naturally assumed it was man caused. You see where I'm going with this. It is conditional on evidence. I thank you for the debate.

Climate change is a fraud

I'll accept this challenge. First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic First, I should ask to be clear: When you say "climate change is a fraud, " are you referring specifically to anthropogenic climate change or all climate change? If it is the former, As I suspect it is, I won't waste time explaining all the evidence that the globe is, In fact, Warming at an unprecedented rate and instead go straight into attribution. If, However, You don't think the globe is really warming at an unprecedented rate, I'm happy to go into the evidence for it. Moreover, "fraud" implies more than just the majority of scientists being wrong (i. E. Misinterpreting the evidence) but also that they are intentionally lying. This is a big claim given the number of scientists who support the concept of anthropogenic climate change and one that incurs its own burden of proof. See you some time in the next 72 hours.

Climate change

This such a broad topic it will be difficult to debate, but we'll have a go at it. It is certainly an issue that deserves attention, so it's a good topic. I agree with the contention that global warming exists. The earth has been warming at the rate of about 0.19 deg/decade since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 1800s, well before human-produced CO2 could have been the cause. Climate change is the norm. The prior Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was declared green, was about as warm as the present. Before that, the Holocene Optimum, about 3-5000 years ago was not only warmer than now, it was warmer than the dire global warming predictions forecast. [2a] Polar bears survived. I deny the contention that human-produced CO2 is a significant factor, although I allow that it may be a marginal contributor. The alleged scientific consensus is not meaningful, because the the consensus is largely determined by non-scientists and by scientists whose expertise is outside of fields relevant to climatology. The IPCC conclusions are determined by a dozen or so political zealots who write the conclusions and then force the scientists in charge of individual chapters to rewrite to support the conclusion the elite has reached. Only about 30% of the IPCC are scientists, the rest are government bureaucrats. The IPCC report is not subject to peer review and the scientists who contribute are not allowed to vote on whether it is reflects the consensus view or not. http://nzclimatescience.net... http://thewashingtonpest.blogspot.com... The professional societies operate in much the same fashion. The AAAS has only a few climate scientists, and the endorsement of climate change is done by the political elite, not by the climate scientists. Not too many years ago, the consensus of relevant mental health professionals was that homosexuality was a form of mental illness, and the learned societies officially endorsed that view. It was wrong. Similarly, the Steady State Theory of the universe was once the strong consensus view; that consensus didn't last. Recently, DOE Secretary Stephen Chu was asked by a Democrat if it was possible if global warming could possibly be "a hoax." Of course it isn't a hoax, because the people who believe in it are sincere. Chu himself endorses CO2 theory. Nonetheless, Chu was properly circumspect. He said (paraphrasing), "In science we most honor the dissenters who disprove the consensus." The highly publicized consensus in 1970 was that the earth was on the brink of a new ice age. The best estimates of the level of consensus I've seen are from Patrick Michaels, who worked on the IPCC reports, which can be combined with limited polling data. it's probably about 40% pro-CO2, 30% anti, and the rest "maybe." CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as Pro supposes. So if CO2 increases, say, 10%, then we ought to get something like 10% warming, right? No, that is not the way it works. A little bit of the CO2 in the atmosphere causes a relatively large amount of global warming, but as more is added the relative effect decreases dramatically. A straightforward physical model of the CO2 in the atmosphere shows that the increases in CO2 in the twentieth century would have a negligible direct effect on climate. To make the increases in CO2 have a significant effect, there has to be a multiplier that somehow magnifies the effect. There are many candidates for such a multiplier. For example, if somehow average cloud cover where reduced by a mere 2%, we would expect as much global warming as has been observed. It's no problem for guys with computers and hundreds of variables to tweak them to make the answer come out any way they want it to. The test as to whether they have it right is whether the models accurately predict what is observed. They do not. http://www.drroyspencer.com... There was a spike in temperatures in the mid to late 1990's. The models predicted a continual exponential rise in temperature. El Nino went away and temperatures subsided. Temperatures for the past decade have been about stable. If anything, they have decreased. http://www.drroyspencer.com... Atmospheric particulates were modeled to cause temperatures to decrease from 1930 to 1970, but that is no longer available to explain why temperatures are not increasing. Perhaps most telling, CO2 theory makes a strong prediction about the relative temperature rise in the lower, middle, and upper atmosphere and from pole to pole. The observations show the predictions to be wrong. [1a] Past climate change was probably due to solar activity, because there was insignificant human-produced CO2. Observations of the last few hundred years show solar effects correlate well with climate change. Unfortunately, solar activity turns out to need a multiplier just like CO2 theory. One explanation is that cosmic rays cause increased cloud formation, and the small changes in cloud formation produce the climate effects. This theory is not established, but there is a major test being conducted by CERN. Pro points to a feedback effect from CO2 being released from the ocean as the ocean is heated. This puts more CO2 in the air, which in turn causes more heating. The regenerative effect is such that once global warming starts, the world is guaranteed to end. But actually, there have been many instances of warming greater than the present, and the world did not end. The climate reversed and became colder despite the high CO2 levels. That means that whatever the contribution of CO2 to warming, there was something far greater that controlled climate, driving temperatures down despite CO2's best efforts to keep them up. The likely culprit is the Sun dominating climate. CO2 levels lag the rise and fall of temperatures by about 800 years. That implies that if multiplying effects of CO2 were significant, the earth could not have had temperature significant temperature changes in less than 800 years. Think in terms of an auto that has a 80 second lag in the accelerator. You floor the accelerator, and 80 seconds later you are up to 25 mph. With that kind of car, it isn't possible to get to 50 in just a few seconds. However, there are instances of dramatic climate change in around 50 years. The theory is therefore wrong. The Arctic Ice cap appears and disappears in roughly 60 year cycles. http://www.drroyspencer.com... The 60 year cycles track solar activity. Ships sailed across the Arctic Ocean in 1939, the last time the ice disappeared. Last winter was one of the coldest Arctic winters on record, with about a third of the ice refreezing. It appears the cycle has peaked and it heading colder. There is no sound evidence that weather is getting more violent due to global warming. [1c] In the last IPCC report, the executive committee demanded that the scientist in charge of the section on hurricanes attribute increase in hurricane activity to global warming. He refused and resigned in protest. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... The scientific evidence now points to solar activity as the cause of present global warming as well as past global warming. There are multiple solar effects, including direct solar irradiance, cosmic ray effect induced by changes in the Sun's magnetosphere, and long term variations in the earth tilt and orbit. There are seven or more solar cycles that correlate well with past and present climate change. CO2 theory claims that CO2 now dominates climate, but in fact temperatures have been stable for a decade despite CO2 rise. 1. Michaels, P. J., Shattered Consensus (a) p246-51 2. Singer, F, et al, Unstoppable Global Warming (a) p 66 (b) p 137 ff (c) p201-12

Anthropogenic global climate change.

But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen" -Stupidape This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well. "Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so." - Stupidape Yes, weather related deaths are happening. And they are declining. According to an article by a Department of the Interior Science and Technology policy analyst Indur M. Goklany, global death rates from weather-related disasters are declining [2]. "Death rates for the different categories of extreme events were generally lower in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s than in previous decades.". "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered the transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."- Stupidape In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that, "Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)." Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous. Goklany also says that, "Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change." This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated. "I will contend that anthropogenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent."-Stupidape Arguing that "anthropogenic climate change" is to blame for weather-related deaths doesn't prove it exists; it is simply an effect. An effect that wasn't supposed to be debated in the first place. "The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%"100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al."- Stupidape The consensus cited is one example of how scientists manipulate data to push an agenda. Cook reviewed 11,914 abstracts, but only used 4,014 in his sample size because they expressed an opinion on global warming [3]. And from there, he got his 97% consensus, which is cherry picking, since he excluded the papers that did not give an opinion. But even THIS subset can't be relied on, as Former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Georgia and professor at the university Dr. David Legates and his colleagues reviewed Cook's consensus. Legates and his team found that, "Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not, in fact, supported it." [4]. Popular Technology reached out to scientists whose articles were in Cook's consensus. They said their papers were falsely classified or not included if they didn't endorse man-made climate change. "[Interviewer] Dr. Carlin, your paper A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; 'Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize'. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. [5]. Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC." "The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst."- Stupidape Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said, "Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays"s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change." Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place. "The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997. One of the world"s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity"s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend."- Stupidape. First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing. "The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks." [7]. "Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. CEO"s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people " all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." - Stupidape Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry, {continued on http://pastebin.com...}