Anthropic climate change is real and a threat.
Debate Rounds (4)
R2-3 Arguments & rebuttals
R4 No new arguments
You beat me last time, I figured its time to challenge you to a rematch.
My first source shows beyond a resonable doubt man-made climate change exists.  My second and third and forth source show that climate change is a threat.  I know my argument is short, but when you got peer reviewed articles as source stating your claim, there is no reason to make a longer argument.
"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. " 
Thanks for the debate.
Fact 1: There has been no significant atmospheric warming since 1998. In addition to this, there has been a lack of an atmospheric hotspot (in the mid to upper troposphere) that was predicted to be caused by greenhouse gas caused warming. This in itself proves that greenhouse gasses are not causing the recent warming trend.
No warming 1: http://blogs.news.com.au...
No warming 2: http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Lack of hotspot 1: https://mises.org...
Lack of hotspot 2: http://sciencespeak.com... (Specifically on pg 6 but I suggest you read more)
Fact 2: Co2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas. According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, it can only store and release 7% of the electromagnetic spectrum that passes through it.
Fact 3: Throughout Earths history, Co2 has been much higher in the past showing that recent levels of Co2 are harmless.
Fact 4: Recently, ice core data shows that Co2 followed temperature, sometimes by hundreds of years, not the other way around.
Lags warming 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Lags warming 2: http://joannenova.com.au...
Lags warming 3: http://i29.tinypic.com...
Fact 5: Co2 has never caused amplification of warming in the past. It is simple logic. If Co2 amplified temperature after orbital changes raised the temperature first, when would the amplification stop? The answer is when there is no more Co2 in the oceans. This would cause the oceans to become abnormally basic and this has only happened once in the last 25 million years:
Ocean pH 25 million years: https://www.manicore.com...
(I know it shows acidification at the end but this does not contradict my argument because it is a different result of more Co2.)
Fact 6: Almost every single computer model made by the IPCC is wrong. This suggests something fundamentally wrong with the models used. In addition, the models are all wrong because they predict to much heat which suggests that the effect of Co2 is being overblown.
Computer models wrong 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Computer models wrong 2: http://c3headlines.typepad.com...
Computer models wrong 3: http://cdn.phys.org...
Fact 7: The Earth has been warming for 15000 (or 20000) years.
Warming for 15000 (or 20000 it depends on the data) years: http://www.oarval.org...
Fact 8: In the last 8000 years, we have had 4 major global warm periods naturally. We had the medieval warm period, the roman warm period, the Minoan warm period and the Holocene maximum.
All major warm periods: http://notrickszone.com...
Medieval warm period was global 1: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...
Medieval warm period was global 2: http://www.climatedepot.com...
Fact 9: All major planet bodies in our solar system are experiencing rapid climate change, indicating that the heating on Earth could be caused by something in the solar system, not the planet.
Mars: Ice caps are shrinking, two pictures showed possible warming (these could be unreliable due to dust storms), atmosphere is gaining clouds, ozone and water vapor (indicating warming).
Pluto: Mysterious dark spots are becoming larger, atmospheric pressure increased by 300% (indicating warming)
Saturn: Giving off x-rays, growing storm spots and other hot spots in its atmosphere (indicating warming)
Uranus: Polar shifts, 2 large storms spots that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming)
Mercury: Gaining a magnetic field, polar ice caps growing (indicating cooling)
Jupiter: Plasma clouds merging together and growing new storm spots (indicating an 18 degree Celsius warming)
Venus: 2500% increase in green glow indicating more oxygen in its atmosphere
Neptune: Weird changes in light intensity.
Earth: Rapid warming
As you can see, every major planet in our solar system is experiencing rapid climate change. Scientists theorize that this is due to increased amounts of energy in the space around our solar system.
Fact 10: There is no scientific way to test whether Co2 causes global warming. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data.
Fact 11: During the post economic boom, when Co2 soared, temperatures fell despite the increase in Co2. This has been blamed on increased sulfur emissions but NASA says, "the cooling effect of the pollution aerosols will be somewhat regionally dependent, near and downwind of industrial areas" which explains how sulfur would only cause cooling in or around the areas it was released. This means that sulfur could not be responsible for the cooling.
Post war economic boom: http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net...
Co2 levels: https://www3.epa.gov...
As you can see, Co2 levels rose dramatically during the post economic boom, past what they had ever been at before, yet temperatures fell.
In conclusion, I have provided 11 facts explaining how Co2 can not, or has never been, a main climate driver. All the historical and recent evidence is stacked against it. While my opponent gives links to a consensus and impacts of possible warming, I have focused on the argument at hand. Explaining why Co2 does not drive climate. While my opponent has made little to no argument, I have shown why the conclusions of the scientists in the consensus he listed were wrong. I thank my opponent for this debate, and may the best man/woman win!
My opponent throws around a bunch of irrelevant facts to try to disprove highly credible and peer reviewed articles. At this point, responding to my opponent's arguments directly would only give the impression that they were worth responding to. I added a few more peer reviewed articles to back up my points.
I use peer reviewed to prove that anthropic climate change is real and a threat. When two sides of the debate conflict on facts, the winner goes to the side who uses the more credible sources. My opponent uses blogs and other sources with notorious reputations. Then, my opponent proceeds to engage in conjecture that these red herrings somehow impact the resolution.
At the very least voters, give me the more credible sources points. The below quote, although lengthy explains that man-made climate change isn't something far in the future, its an event that has occurred already and is continuing to occur and claim human lives. I have overwhelmingly met my burden of proof. Thanks for the debate.
""Unusually high temperatures, as well as socioeconomic vulnerability, along with social attenuation of hazards, in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke. In addition to age and gender, combinatorial factors included preexisting disease, medication, urban residence, isolation, poverty, and, probably, air pollution. Although diversely impacted or reported, many parts of Europe suffered human and other losses, such as farming and forestry through drought and fires. Summer 2003 was the hottest in Europe since 1500, very likely due in part to anthropogenic climate change."" 
Strong hurricane numbers have stayed almost constant since 1880:
Tornado numbers have stayed constant since 1950 in the U.S.:
Drought frequency seems to have stayed constant for almost 50 years:
Sea levels are not rising due to heat because the Argo Buoy System data shows that the ocean has not warmed since we started measuring (2003) This shows that the sea only seems to be rising because of tectonic plate movement and the supposed rise is only due to a natural cycle:
Antarctic ice extent has reached record levels in 2012, 2013 and 2014:
This has been blamed on increased precipitation causing more snowfall but if this is true then how come the same thing isn't happening in the Arctic? If this were true, then Arctic ice would be growing too.
It is true that heat wave frequency has increased but other natural disaster frequencies have stayed constant proving that the climate change threat is either nonexistent or being exaggerated.
In conclusion, while I agree that rapid climate change poses a threat, I believe that this threat is being exaggerated and that humanity does not have to worry about extreme heat or any other natural disaster for much longer because once the world enters a natural cooling period all of this will be forgotten.
"R2-3 Arguments & rebuttals" Stupidape
I didn't break my own rules. This means you can perform any combination of arguments and rebuttals in r2 as well as r3. If you had any questions about the structure the best time would have been before accepting the debate and/or round 1. I rebutted your argument indirectly and reinforced my own argument. My opponent uses the tired strategy of cherry picking evidence and red herrings by climate change deniers. Unable to find any peer reviewed articles my opponent relies upon non-credible sources.
I ask this, if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal? Until then, I can't take your argument seriously when they contradict scholarly peer reviewed sources. Especially the more prestigious journals like sciencemag.
"The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. 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." 
Thank you for debating. Vote Pro.
My opponent then says, "if you are so sure you are correct and there are so many climate change deniers, why don't you publish your r2-3 arguments in a peer reviewed journal?" My response to this is that:
1. There are not many climate change skeptics. This is because people choose not to be skeptical because believing in man made global warming is how you get grants.
2. I don't publish my findings in a peer reviewed journal because they would not get published. This is because the people who choose what to publish in the journals most likely believe in man made global warming and are therefore biased against me. Another reason a journal would not publish a skeptical article about man made global warming is that if they did, then they would be accused of being funded by fossil fuel companies and would be ridiculed. Other scientists have already tried to publish their findings and it is always rejected so why should I try? What people don't realize is that by attacking anyone who has a skeptical view of man made climate change you are preventing research into that area and therefore creating a huge bias in the experiments done and articles published.
In conclusion, my opponent has not rebutted even one of my claims, instead they focus on the accusations of rule breaking. Due to this absence of rebuttals, my arguments stand and therefore, based on this debate, I have proven how climate change is not much of a threat, and that global warming is not caused by man. While my opponent may of used abstracts from peer reviewed articles (as they love pointing out) I have won the debate. I have given 11 points to why climate change is not due to Co2 and given countless examples of natural disaster frequency staying constant. All of the arguments I have made in this debate go uncontested and therefore prove that climate change is not man made and that the threat is exaggerated. Due to this, all voters are mandated to vote Con under more convincing arguments and conduct.
Thank you for reading this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TN05 1 month ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD here: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/92340/
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.