Anthropogenic climate change.
Debate Rounds (4)
I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.
R1 Acceptance & definitions
Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.
Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.
Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.
Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.
Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.
Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.
A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic 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." 
Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so.
"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." 
"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " 
"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 transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." 
"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 " 
My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.
The earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.1% trace gases including CO2.
Assume (for this paragraph only) that the small trace gas of CO2 (.04%) is the cause of global warming. The focus here will be upon sources of CO2 emissions both natural and manmade. The source emissions of CO2 would by a most rational people would be the cause of global warming. According to the IPCC 800 gigatons of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere from nature and man, annually. Most rational people would consider a source that is most than 51% to be the cause of a problem. Some irrational people might try to argue that 33% would be a threshold for cause. Only, crazy people would state that something that is less than 5% could be consider the cause. That brings us to the percent of total CO2 emissions from mankind. That percent of CO2 emissions is 3.62% (29 from man of 800 total gigatons)!  This 3.62% can not be the cause of global warming.
Now, questioning if CO2 is the cause of global warming. The alarmist side uses thresholds in parts per million (PPM). 400 PPM sounds scary and 0.04% is at an insanely small amount, both numbers are the same. Imagine, how quick the alarmists arguments would be dismissed if they said that 0.04% of atmospheric gases drove global climate. Then if combined with only 3.6% of annual CO2 emissions is from man, this is an incredibly small number that man is responsible for.
Using just common sense methods, it becomes very hard to believe claims made by alarmists. Anyone attempting to say 3.6% is the cause of a problem would be laughed at. Especially, when the gas in question is exhaled by each one of us.
The real reasons for climate change to be anthropogenic is political and financial. Just federal grants for climate change related projects is greater than $10 billion. Scientists are just as financially motivated as anyone else. A climate scientist that is outside of the mainstream will not be funded. This creates incentives to stay in agreement with those in political power. Anthropogenic climate change as a political is prefect for oppressive progressive politicians. The solutions to this false issue are more governmental control over the daily lives of harmless people. The politicians have scientist by the purse strings, this ensures compliance.
This debate is about causes not effects, thus positive and negative impacts will not be addressed.
My opponent first makes the argument that man-made Co2 can't be the problem. The reason being is that Co2 is only a small part of the gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere. Secondly, that man-made Co2 emissions are much less than natural Co2 emissions.
The problem with this is my opponent is only taking a small part of the picture. Trying to argue down main stream science with faulty logic and withholding information. My opponent's argument about man-made Co2 is a cherry picking fallacy.
Evidence A and evidence B is available.
Evidence A supports the claim of person 1.
Evidence B supports the counter claim of person 2.
Therefore, person 1 presents only evidence A." 
My opponent withholds the fact that Venus has lots of Co2 and is much warmer than the Earth. " Carbon dioxide: 96 percent"
So, yes absolutely the Earth has a much lower amount of Co2 than Venus, otherwise we would all be cooked.  Therefore, my opponent's claim about Co2 only composing a small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere only helps prove man-made climate change.
Next, my opponent states that humans only generate a small portion of the Co2 compared to natural emissions. This is another cherry picking fallacy.  Yes, humans generate far less Co2 that natural, but the natural Co2 is absorbed by nature too, thus the naturally generated Co2 is canceled out by the natural absorption. The anthropogenic Co2 is not naturally absorbed and thus accumulates. For more information about the global carbon cycle follow link seven. 
Furthermore, even small amounts of Co2 can cause an amplification effect also known as a positive feedback cycle. This is why even a small amount of Co2 increase can cause dramatic changes to the climate.
"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." 
My opponent then contends that climate change is political and has to do with corrupt industry. Yet, big oil is also powerful and politically influential. It would make more sense that the anti-man-made climate change movement is funded by a corrupt big oil and other fossil fuels interest groups.
The 90th richest person on the planet owns 11.3 billion from oil alone. A person can only imagine how powerful and how much money all the oil in the world is worth and the oil industry is worth.
"the vast formation of oil-bearing rock that sits beneath much of North Dakota and Montana. With his 72% ownership stake in publicly traded Continental, Hamm is now worth $11.3 billion, making him the 90th richest person on the planet, according to Forbes newly released annual ranking of the world’s billionaires."
Finally, my opponent suggests no alternative explanation for why the Earth's temperatures continue to increase. Whether my opponent thinks the temperatures are not increasing or are increasing but by non-made man causes is ambiguous. In contrast, I offer main stream science to tell how and why the Earth's temperatures are increasing.
"A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic 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.'"
That is the only statement that is close to an argument about cause. Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. Then appeals to emotion by asking people to think about their grandchildren, thus action to reduce CO2 must be taken, you know just in case. The question could also be asked, what if the consensus is wrong? The alarmists are advocating for billions of people to reduce their living standards to keep the planet from maybe warming a few degrees.
Looking at the analogy mostly used to explain green house effect, which is a green house. A few years ago I was in an empty plastic sheet green house on a sunny but very cold day. The very thin sheet of clear plastic raised the inside temperature significantly, but the owner was planning on disassembling within a few days. My question to the owner was "would a second sheet of plastic make the green house warmer for longer?" The owner looked at me and said "it does not work that way". There would be an insulation effect if there is a gap between the two sheets of plastic. Yet, this false consensus is asking us to believe that more CO2 equals higher global temperatures.
From an idea that more plastic does not make a green house warmer to a question would more CO2 make the Earth warmer. There is research that suggests once there is enough CO2 to have a green house effect more will not cause higher temperatures. This is outside the narrative and must be stopped. Government's need a reason for people to be scared so that controls can be forced on everyone.
In summary, consensus is not science! Climate change has become like a religion for those that believe. Western civilization learned centuries ago that state and religion is best separated. Thus, policy changes based on climate change consensus should not be enacted by governments.
"Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. " Chang29
My opponent mistakes scientists skeptical and conservative perspective as doubt. Can science 100% proven man-made climate change? No, but neither can scientists 100% proven humans or reality exists.  Scientists work in probability. The best science can offer is that humans and reality probably exist. Just as man-made climate change probably exists.
Humans desire there is a 100% chance of x happening and a 0% chance of y happening. Yet, as humans we don't have the luxury of omniscience. We cannot afford the risk of waiting for more accurate methods and technology. Given the available evidence there is about a 97% chance that man-made climate change exists, is killing people, and will continue to kill people.
Now we can act upon the 97% chance, a huge risk, or act upon the 3% chance, a small risk. Then, depending upon whether climate change is correct or not four possibilities emerge.
A. If we act upon the 97% chance and then later find out we were wrong, that aliens or some other extremely unlikely scenario was causing climate change, we can feel confident that we took the best course of action given our current knowledge. Little criticism is likely.
B. We act upon the 97% chance and are correct in our assessments. We will be correct and know we performed the correct course of action.
C. We act on the 3% chance and are incorrect, then we will be receive harsh criticism for not acting upon the best available data.
D. 3% option, and we are correct. Everyone will be happy, but confused. For years to come people will question, how did you know that climate change wasn't real? Did you have a psychic ball? This is the most idealistic scenario and most unlikely.
As for my opponent's accusation of an appeal to emotion fallacy, this seems like an extremely probable scenario and thus is logical. I contend that the author of the peer reviewed article was logically coherent when arguing that are grandchildren would blame us for inaction.
"Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. " 
My opponent makes a strange analogy between plastic blankets and greenhouse gases. First I've already explained that Venus has a higher concentration of Co2 and is warmer. Second, my opponent using an appeal to authority fallacy, using the owner of a greenhouse as the authority figure. My opponent never adequately explains why a second sheet of plastic wouldn't make the green house warmer for longer.
In fact, an insulation effect would most likely cause the greenhouse to become warmer for longer. Think wearing multiple sweaters in winter. More insulation in a house makes the house stay warmer for longer.
As for a scientific consensus equaling religion, my opponent's argument seems to misunderstand what a scientific consensus is. "So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer." 
In summary, the weight of evidence for science change is so overwhelming that scientists are no longer arguing and thus at a consensus.
I thank my opponent for a difficult and respectful debate.
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
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 weeks 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:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con said gov funding is a reason for bias. Pro said that big oil also fund anti-global warming research. Pro wins. Con said greenhouses don't get warmer with more insulation so earth won't. Pro showed they actually do. Pro wins. Con said the small % of CO2 emissions being emitted humans refuted agw. Pro said natural CO2 gets absorbed while the extra human Co2 start building up. Pro wins. Pro said greenhouse gasses are making Venus warmer than earth so more on earth will warm. Con denied they were affecting Venus but the last round is for defense. Pro wins. Con said low CO2 in the atmosphere refuted its impact. Pro gave the Venus argument and said CO2 causes a chain reaction. Pro said without justification scientific consensus proves global warming. Con said consensus isnt necessarily right. Pro said we dont need 100% evidence which isn't a response. Pro attacked Con for appeal to authority at one point and the consensus argument is just that. Con wins. All arguments are refuted, a tie.
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.