args

Climate change

The theory that CO2 drives climate rose to prominence in the 1980s. The earth had been cooling from the 30s into the 70s, and by the early 70s the threat of an approaching ice age was the consensus of scientists and was hyped in the press. CO2 theory was derived by tweaking computer models under the assumption that the sun was inactive, and climate was being driven by CO2. The models predicted that the earth would be, by last summer, eight degrees warmer than was actually observed. The models also fail to predict the distribution of temperatures from the surface upwards, and fail to predict the distribution from pole to pole. CO2 has continued to rise, but temperatures over the last decade have been stable or slightly declining. In the history of the earth, there have been ice ages when there was 12 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere; it has never dominated climate. It's possible that CO2 makes a small contribution to climate cahnge, but clearly it's not the significant factor. If it were a key component, the CO2 models would have been proved right, rather than proved wrong. The magnetosphere of the sun has probably been driving climate change. CO2 theorists take the irradiance of the sun into account, but not the magnetosphere. Basically, solar magnetic activity moderates cosmic rays on earth, and the cosmic rays cause a cloud seeding effect which in turn affects cloud cover by the roughly 3% required to dominate climate. Historically, we know that a period of the Little Ice Age was characterize by there being virtually no sunspots. Cosmic ray theory is still unproved, but what is clear at this point is that something other than CO2 is in control of climate. The allegation is that Exxon-Mobile provides about $1.6 million per year to support non-CO2 research on global warming. Perhaps 40% of climate scientists dissent from CO2 theory, so Pro supposes that 40% of climate scientists can be bought for $1.6 million. In the current year, the US Congress alone "has provided over $2,000,000,000 in resources to address the reality of global warming climate change and its effect on Earth's environments, ... [including] $400,000,000 for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which more than $200,000,000 is to enhance climate change research and regional assessments" http://www.climatesciencewatch.org.... This does not count the money poured in by private foundations and foreign governments. Al Gore alone has made $100 million from global warming advocacy, with his unscientific movie winning him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. An example of Gores "science" is that the IPCC says the worst case rise in sea level in the next hundred years is half a meter, but Gore shows New York being inundated. Gore regularly testifies before Congress in the role of an expert on global warming. In a BBC documentary, a researcher in the UK put it this way (paraphrasing): "If I apply for a government research grant to study, 'The food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex' I'll have a small chance of getting funding. But if I propose to study, 'The effects of global warming on the food storage habits of squirrels in Sussex,' my chances are much improved." http://www.amazon.com... Horner describes the outrageous bias shown in favor of CO2 theory and against opponents in his book: Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed So Pro is contending that Exxon's measly $1.6 million completely invalidates any opposition research, but the billions paid in tribute to CO2 theory simply do not count. If anything, it validates the opposition as willing to carry on based upon dedication to science despite inadequate funding. In science, there is the peer review process by which publications are reviewed by fellow scientists. The peer review committees are likely to have majorities favoring CO2 theory. So how is it that opposing papers, which Pro dismisses as worthless because of their sponsorship, get past peer review? There is no question that hundreds of such papers are published; hundreds are listed on the co2science.org web site. My explanation is that most scientists are fundamentally honest, and most papers don't make global pronouncements, they chip away at parts of the problem. The peer review process isn't perfect, but it works well enough to filter out bogus papers. So how does Pro's theory of scientists being easily corrupted by small money ($1.6 million spread among thousands of scientists) explain the opposition papers passing peer review? Pro originally claimed that high temperatures on Venus proved that climate was sensitive to small changes in CO2. The fact is that 3500 times the CO2 produces 150 degrees of warming, so clearly it is insensitive. Pro then introduced an imaginary unlabeled curve to show that even though it was insensitive overall, it could be sensitive at our present low levels. That's a different argument. It could be, but is it? Pro offered nothing but an imaginary curve. I then referenced the curve shape computed from physical theory fitted to the data from the 20th century, showing that doubling the CO2 levels on earth would raise temperatures here by less than 2 degrees. Pro then responded that the curve does not work for Venus. True, it doesn't work for Venus. One reason is that CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas on earth, but it is the dominant greenhouse gas on Venus. On earth it is water vapor. A second reason is that the atmosphere on Venus is nearly a hundred times as dense as that of earth, and most of the greenhouse effect occurs relatively near the surface. This was explained in detail in the references I gave. This makes the calculation for Venus considerably different that from that for earth. Pro has not rebutted the calculations done for earth under the assumptions appropriate for earth, where water vapor dominates, the atmosphere is relatively thin, and we have actual data for the 20th century. Pro claims, "Con stated that temperatures have been stable for the past decade. I have proven this wrong and Con did not respond to this statement and the proof presented." I did in fact respond to Pro's claim. I pointed out that Pro's claimed reference did not show the temperatures for the past decade. I then provided a reference that does show the temperatures, and clearly the temperatures have not been increasing as Pro claims. My exact words were, "The second graph in http://wattsupwiththat.com... compares actual temperature with climate model prediction. Temperature have been level for the past decade, and August 2008 was 3 C below June 1988, rather than projected 5 C above." Pro claims that I cannot logically attack both the existence of large consensus and the validity of the consensus. There is nothing illogical about attacking both. How many scientists believe something and whether it is correct or not are loosely coupled. Consensus on the shape of the earth or the 99.86% consensus on the theory of evolution are pretty convincing, but a 60/40 or 50/50 split is not a basis for claiming a reliable conclusion. CO2 theory has been taking severe hits as it continually fails to predict climate, and I'm not sure even if there is a consensus any more. Pro's only argument that there is a consensus is that the IPCC report exists. even though the IPCC is 70% non-scientists, the conclusions are dictated by a small elite, there is no peer review of the report, and scientists don't get to vote on it. The evidence is that CO2 is not a significant factor in recent climate change, and the variations in past climate cannot be attributed to CO2. CO2 to moderates climate, but for 600 million years the variations above that level have had little effect.

Sustainable Development And Climate Change

I thank the commenters who brought this to my attention. Now, since my opponent's rant does not make any real points in his favor, I will simply make my case and explain why my opponent's case does not fulfill his burden [that is, if his plagiarized first round should count at all]. As you can see, one of the things my opponent is arguing FOR in this debate is Sustainable Development. My opponent must argue FOR both Sustainable development AND climate change. I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that development is not sustainable, and I am therefore against the concept of sustainable development. Development requires that we take something that is undeveloped and develop it. However, we reach a point where we can no longer develop any further. My opponent has only helped in showing this. he indeed azrgues that development is not sustainable. He as in the source he plagiarized from, of course. And my opponent has certainly made no case in favor of climate change, which he must do to fulfill the AND of the resolution. As CON, I have many avenues of argumentation. I can argue against sustainable development, or I can argue against he indeed azrgues that development is not sustainable. He as in the source he plagiarized from, of course. And my opponent has certainly made no case in favor of climate change, which he must do to fulfill the AND of the resolution. As CON, I have many avenues of argumentation. I can argue against sustainable development, or I can argue against climate change. Or I could argue against both. For now, what I have done will suffice. I hope my opponent brings his own content to the table next round, or at least properly cites the original authors if he is incapable of making his own argument.

Anthropogenic global climate change.

Studies Contradict Man Made Warming Anthropogenic climate change is not real. Yes, the climate changes, but humans aren't the cause of it. A study by the biology cabinet shows no relationship between CO2 and temperature [1]. "On this assessment, the evidence points to a current natural climate change which happens sequentially in two main climate periods, icehouse and warmhouse." Another study was found on the Vostok ice cores, which show temperature records going back over 400,000 years. Data from the ice cores reveal an 800 year lag of CO2 behind temperature [2], meaning CO2 changes came AFTER temperature. If climate change was man made, then temperature would lag behind CO2, but the opposite happens, which proves that CO2 cannot influence temperature. The ice cores also show that the temperature rose to about the same level whenever it rose significantly, which shows that it is a constant cycle and not affected by human activities. The same can be said about the CO2 levels. Manipulation by Scientists and Bribing by the Government One of the biggest science scandals, Climategate, occurred in 2009. Hackers stole emails from scientists at the East Angelia Climatic Research Unit, and statements from the emails contradict anthropogenic climate change. [3]. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate" [4]. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." [4]. The government as well as a variety of foundations donate billions of dollars to scientists to prove global warming is man made and to groups that put a megaphone to the global warming agenda. [5] This bias completely destroys the point of researching issues like climate change. Research isn't supposed to be "Let's try to prove our political agenda.". It's supposed to be a non partisan look into an issue affecting our lives. How can we accept something as a fact if the people researching the issue are lying to us. The Evidence Outside our Planet One interesting thing about the warming is that it doesn't just affect Earth. Mars, Triton (Neptune's moon), Pluto, and Jupiter are all experiencing warming. But I want to focus more on Mars, since in our solar system, Mars is the most similar planet to Earth. Both have roughly the same length of day and rotation axis [6]. Its atmosphere consists of 95% CO2 [7], and is seen to be warming. In fact, Mars warmed .65 degrees Celsius in 20 years (1975-1995) [8], whereas Earth took 32 years to warm .65 degrees Celsius (from 1975 to 2007) [9]. Even though Mars' atmosphere is 95% CO2, it is still less than the amount on Earth. Environment scientist at Wright State University Jim Milks showed how the math plays out [10]. "The total mass of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is 95.32% volume x (44.0095/43.34) = 96.79% by mass CO2 96.79% mass x 2.5 x 1016 kg = 2.383 x 10^16 kg CO2 The equivalent calculation for Earth is Earth: Total atmosphere mass: 5.1 x 1018 kg Mean molecular mass of atmosphere: 28.97 g/mole % volume CO2: 0.04% 0.04% volume x (44.0095/28.97) = 0.0608% mass CO2 0.0608% mass x 5.1 x 1018 kg = 3.101 x 10^17 kg CO2 Last time I checked, 3.101 x 1017 kg is larger than 2.383 x 1016 kg by over 13x." So what could be the cause of the global warming? I believe the sun is the one responsible, as correlations between the sun and the Earth's temperature have been found when studying temperature and sun levels from 1880-1980 [11], and 1980-2006 [12]. This could also explain why other planets in our solar system are warming, as all the planets rely on the Sun. But at the end of the day, the warming is NOT caused by CO2. Sources [1]-http://www.biocab.org... [2]-http://joannenova.com.au... and also http://cdiac.ornl.gov... [3]-https://wikileaks.org... [4]-http://pastebin.com... (Screen shots of emails)* and also http://www.justfacts.com... [5]-http://www.nationalreview.com... and also http://www.forbes.com... [6]-http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [7]-http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... [8]-http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [9]-http://climate.nasa.gov... [10]-http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com... [11]-http://www.tmgnow.com... [12]-http://www.biocab.org... *The emails were only available from downloading, and taking screen shots of the emails are the easiest way to show the emails.

Climate change is a fraud

Well, We've made it to the final round. Let's take one last look at your objections: 1. You said, Quote, "The science profession is a very frivolous profession and is one that the community doesn't need most of the time. " You say this while typing on an electronic device built by science, Probably in a building which was designed by engineers using science. If you drive a car, That car was built by science. If you ever need an operation or an artificial limb or some other medical treatment, It will be science-based. Science does not need to "invent" disasters to be useful. You'd be hard-pressed to find a problem can't at least try to solve. The solution to overpopulation may be to colonize other planets. The solution to plastic pollution may be to find biodegradable alternatives. Science works, And you rely on it everyday. As far as your claim that science is a sort of Illuminati dictatorship, I see no evidence this is the case. Anyone can go to college, Get a degree in science and pursue a career in the field. 2. I did not say nuclear weapons could warm the Earth the way global warming does; I said they could lead to the extinction of all life on Earth. Even though this is not climate change, It still debunks your claim that humans cannot affect the environment because the world is so much bigger than us. We can destroy life with nuclear fallout, And we can warm the globe with greenhouse gases. 3. Since it's not the topic of the debate, I won't spend too much time on your coronavirus hoax claim, But I will note that your notion of all disease being caused by a bad diet cannot account for contagion. If you spend time with someone who is sick, You are more likely to get sick yourself. That doesn't work if your diet is what makes you sick. It also doesn't explain why some people test positive for viruses like COVID-19 while others test negative, Or why doctors require patients to be tested for the virus before major operations. (I had an operation recently and was required to be tested before I could receive it. ) 4. You seem to be under the false impression that there can only be one cause of climate change and causes cannot be interdependent. You also don't seem to have considered that some causes are direct while others are indirect. You're right to say that without the sun, There would be no global warming. (There would be no life at all, But we'll ignore that detail for now and assume humans could still emit greenhouse gases. ) However, You are not correct to say that because the energy which heats the Earth comes from the sun, Humans have no effect on HOW MUCH of that energy stays on Earth. Let's examine the greenhouse effect: The sun emits shortwave radiation, Which the atmosphere is transparent to, Including greenhouse gases. Upon reaching the Earth, That energy's wavelength decreases to change from visible light to heat. At this point, The sun has NO EFFECT on what happens to this energy. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, However, Do. CO2, Methane and water all absorb the shortwave radiation in their particles, Which have a high energy storage capacity, Before reradiating it in all directions, Most of which lead back to Earth. 5. Yes, Clouds can make a hot day cooler. However, Clouds are not made of water vapor but rather liquid water droplets attached to airborne dust and particulates. This means the clouds do not allow shortwave radiation to pass through like water vapor. Regardless, Clouds cooling off a hot day is an example of weather, Not climate, Being affected. Weather refers to conditions at a specific moment in time. Climate is a long-term pattern, Usually spanning at least 30 years. Whatever light passes through the clouds will convert to heat and be absorbed by the water in the atmosphere when it reradiates. Closing statement: The evidence that climate change is real is overwhelming. Among the numerous attribution studies which have been done, Perhaps the most exhaustive was by the IPCC. They examined the effect of multiple factors which could contribute to the recent warming period, Both natural (volcanoes, Solar radiation, Milankovitch variations in Earth's orbit and tilt) and anthropogenic (aerosols, Changes in land use affecting the albedo (reflectivity of Earth's surface), Human-emitted greenhouse gases). It was found that the only factor which came close to explaining the recent warming trend was greenhouse gas emissions; without factoring their effect in, The climate should be effectively stable right now and perhaps even getting cooler. In fact, The contribution of greenhouse gases is so strong that it could effectively explain the recent warming trend on its own, With NO other factors considered (although this would predict a slightly more rapid warming that we see because, Again, The other factors lead to a net cooling). Therefore, Climate change is definitely real, And humans definitely contribute to it. We have it in our power to find solutions to it, But this debate is not about which ones we should or should not employ. It's just about the objective fact that it is happening. Best of luck to you, My opponent. I've done all I can do. It's now in the hands of the judges.

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!

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

Humans do not cause CLIMATE CHANGE, cutting grass with non renewable resources does. Humans do not cause climate change, refusing to live closer to your choice of work does. Humans do not cause climate change, planes burning jet fuel as an alternative to slower flights does. Humans do not cause climate change, neglecting to grow trees in concrete jungles does. HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems. like not growing food, flat ground, and damned house pets. I'mma smoke ur turkey. SO it's ur shot. Lay out ur case. you can argue with mine later.