The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anthropogenic climate change.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 889 times Debate No: 98260
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.


Structure
R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense

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's 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 two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.

Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate.

Source.
0. http://www.debate.org...
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept most of the rules of your debate, but do not accept the character limit. Since you didn't respond in time to my comments, but were apparently online during this time, I believe I gave you sufficient time to respond.

Since you didn't change the character limit to 10,000 within a half hour despite being online, I will use a google docs if I go over 8,000 characters, but will not go over 10,000 characters. You may do the same if you go over 8,000, but be sure not to go over 10,000 characters. Do you agree to this? If not, I'll just forfeit the debate.

Definitions:
Anthropogenic: "of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature"[1]


I felt the definition of that word may be necessary since it's a large word that many people may not have heard of before, so I defined it for the benefit of the voters.


Sources:
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Arguments


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." [1]


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." [2]


"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [3]

"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." [4]

"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 " [5]

My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.

Sources:
1. http://science.sciencemag.org...
2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
3. http://dx.doi.org...
4. http://www.nature.com...
5. http://iopscience.iop.org...

Capitalistslave

Con

Acknowledgement of opposing evidence
I shall first bring up some evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change. One may wonder why I would do this when I am arguing against anthropogenic climate change, but it’s really simple: I do this in order to provide the opposing side some representation and then I will present my side to refute that side’s argument. That is the most logical way of debating, and if you ignore evidence when it is available to you, that is a cherry-picking fallacy.

The main evidence of anthropogenic climate change, is the increased levels of CO2 emissions within the past couple of centuries. It is believed that irreversible effects are occurring now and into the future due to increased CO2 emissions, and that this CO2 emission increase is due to primarily human activity [1]. In fact, in this study, it is shown that if humans were to cut all CO2 emissions the CO2 in the atmosphere would linger still and still cause more warming even if it were all put to an end. [1] There are of course plenty of other studies that show this as well.

Refuting the scientific consensus
There is often stated that 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real[2]. However, it is a fallacy to trust the words of authorities on the matter without considering the evidence. In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it. The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case.

Reiterating previous debate points
In a previous debate with the same user, it was established that 3.225% of all CO2 emissions are caused from humans by unnatural causes. [4] In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all.

Problems with CO2 emissions claims
Since there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidence” that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth.

In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. If it was as simple as CO2 rises, and therefore temperature rises due to it, then the reverse should not be happening where temperature rises and then CO2 rises. It was also found that CO2 forcing effects on seasonal temperature to be inconclusive, particularly since CO2 emissions cause warming at first, but the warming causes more evaporation of water and thus more clouds and humidity, which lead to a cooling effect, the net effect is not much change in the overall temperature [5]

Next, another study performed by G. V Chilingar et al found that “Even significant releases of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Moreover, CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere results in rising agricultural productivity and improves the conditions for reforestation. Thus, accumulation of small additional amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere as a result of anthropogenic activities has practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.”

In another comprehensive study on global temperature rises by Patrick J. Michaels et al, it was concluded from “observations of atmospheric CO2 buildup and global CO2 emissions... that lead to exponential warming... is not based upon the reality of recent decades.” Many of the models scientists have come out with to show that CO2 rises cause exponential warming, are not reflective of what has actually been happening in the world, and the warming in the world is much more linear.

Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change
While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles that show problems with anthropogenic climate change; there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming, to problems with climate models, to what should have been expected to result from anthropogenic climate change not actually happening. [7]

Due to all of these issues listed above in this category and the previous 3, it is difficult to believe the climate scientists who claim anthropogenic climate change is a reality, when, as far as I’m aware, they have not addressed the above issues outlined.

Inconclusive results and the default position
Because as mentioned before, that majority of the studies done into anthropogenic climate change resulted in inconclusive or neutral results, the default position should be that anthropogenic climate change does not exist. Just as believing a god doesn’t exist is the default position when there is not conclusive evidence for or against a god, or majority of the evidence is inconclusive or neutral, so would then the position on anthropogenic climate change have the default position of not believing in it.

Sources:
[1] http://www.pnas.org...
[2] http://climate.nasa.gov...
[3] http://iopscience.iop.org...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
[6] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[7] https://skepticalscience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals


"In a study conducted by John Cook et al, the same source that my opponent has cited, it was found that majority(66.7%) of studies in relation to anthropogenic climate change were either neutral or inconclusive.[3] One must wonder why 97% of climate scientists are of the opinion anthropogenic climate change is real when the majority of evidence out there is inconclusive and there is some scientific evidence(.7% of studies out there) that anthropogenic climate change is not real, which I shall point out later. " Capitalistslave


While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds.

"4. Discussion
Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no
position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ-
ations where scientists ‘
. . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather
than on matters about which everyone agrees
’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6]


The reason so many articles have no stance is due to focusing on the unanswered questions as opposed to the answered questions.


"In science, something needs to be tested over and over again and achieve the same results in order to conclude something off of it." Capitalistslave


There are false positives and negatives. The same results do not need to be achieved with 100% accuracy.


"The fact that U32; of anthropogenic climate change studies come up with inconclusive or neutral results indicates that we actually don’t understand the effects humans have on climate change, and the scientists are assuming we do by taking the 32% of times that it proved anthropogenic climate change as fact, when majority of the time there is no conclusion to be made. Therefore, 97% of climate scientists, are, in fact, acting unscientifically in this case. " Capitalistslave


False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true.


"In addition, the global temperature for over the past 136 years has only gone up by about 1 degree fahrenheit[1]. These two facts suggest that if humans have had impact on the climate, it is hardly anything to be worried about at all. " Capitalistslave


.6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12]


""The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative"


"Problems with CO2 emissions claims
Since there may be an increase in natural CO2 emissions, it is hard to conclude that the CO2 emissions by humans is what is causing the warming specifically. All variables need to be taken into account, which the study in my second paragraph under “Acknowledging opposing evidenceâ€" that claims anthropogenic climate change happens from CO2 emissions by humans, doesn’t take into account the natural CO2 emissions, the activity of the sun, or anything else that could be leading to warming of the earth. " Capitalistslave


Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]

"In addition, it has been found in one study by Willie Soon et al, that CO2 emissions rising often follows temperature rise, and not always the other way around [5]. " Capitalistslave

The vast majority of the time, Co2 leads. This can be seen from the glacier evidence. The Earth tilts, rising the temperature, causing the oceans to release Co2. The release of Co2 into the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise further. We know this isn't happening now due to ocean acidification and more Co2 going into the ocean than out.

" Marine National Monument, finds that sea-level rise, ocean acidification, ocean warming, and other climate-related changes are expected to significantly affect the monument."[8]

"Problems in general with anthropogenic climate change
While I could continue to talk about all of the evidence against anthropogenic climate change, I shall instead provide a link to over 90 peer-reviewed scientific articles" Capitalistslave


Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change.

"11 944 climate abstracts from 1991â€"2011 matching the topics ‘global climate

change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed
AGW," [6]


32.6% of 11,944 is roughly 3,000 scientific peer reviewed articles that support climate change.


"there are many and various problems with it ranging from how CO2 doesn’t actually affect temperature in the long-term since it balances out when water is evaporated by the initial warming" Captialistslave

Yes, there are negative feedback cycles too, like water evaporating, yet the positive is greater than the negative, meaning Co2 has an amplification effect.

I will now reinforce that Co2 leads, natural Co2 cycles, and ocean acidification.

"CO2 dissolves in waterto form carbonic acid. (It is worth noting that carbonic acid is what eats out limestone caves from our mountains.) In the oceans, carbonic acid releases hydrogen ions (H ), reducing pH, and bicarbonate ions (HCO3-). " [9]

As you can read, Co2 in the ocean must be increasing due to acidification of the oceans. [10] This further proves the Co2 increase is man-made.

Milankovitch Cycles proves that Co2 leads.

"As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming." [11]

This also shows the positive feedback cycle of increased Co2. Despite being only a small percentage of the atmosphere.

"In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount." [13]


As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models. Finally, I will end with the amplification effect. "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." [14]

This shows there is greater postive feedback than negative. Although, the exact strength of the amplificaon effect is still debated.


Sources.
6. http://iopscience.iop.org...
7. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
8. http://www.noaa.gov...
9. https://skepticalscience.com...
10. https://skepticalscience.com...
11. https://skepticalscience.com...
12. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
13. https://skepticalscience.com...
14. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8]

As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason.

A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape
This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case.

"Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape
This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9]
The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic.

In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down.

"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."
This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring.

Sources:
[8] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
[9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
[10] https://www.epa.gov...

Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round four defense


"The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8]

As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. " Capitalistslave


First, there would have to be counter evidence to withhold. I do not perceive that I withheld any evidence, any my opponent has not shown any counter evidence. My opponent has failed to meet his/her burden of proof by showing that there is evidence to withhold. Second, if any evidence is withheld it is weak, thus the fallacious of the argument is small. Third, there is the fallacy fallacy.

"Form:

Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.
Exposition:

Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious. " [15]


Even if I did withhold strong evidence, it doesn't mean Anthropogenic climate change is false, all it means is my argument is fallacious.


"A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape
This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case." Capitalistslave


True, climate change scientists are not infallible, but considering the scientific scholarly peer reviewed sources, the percentage of climate change scientist who support versus opposing man-made climate change, and the burden of proof is to be shared equally, I have more than met my burden of proof for showing the existence of man-made climate change.

An alternative explanation is the USA court system. We do not require 100% proof to convict someone, instead we require a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and preponderance of the evidence in civil. I have shown in my round two argument that we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change exists.

Finally, considering the scope of the entire world and global climate change, any direct evidence can be considered non-sequitur because it would add too little to support the claim. I would literally have to type 30,000 some characters to provide enough direct evidence to prove anthropgenic climate change.


""Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape
This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9]
The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic." Capitalistslave


The evidence may add very little and could qualify as non-sequitur. Yet, remember the fallacy fallacy. [15] More importantly, the scope of the entire planet is very large, so practically any argument I make giving specific examples could qualify as the last part of the non-sequitur fallacy. "adds very little to support to the conclusion."


For example, the glaciers melting are just one small part of the entire world's ecosystem. Therefore, this could be considered a non-sequitur fallacy. Yet, evidence is cumulative. Individually the glaciers melting and the heatwaves might be non-sequitur, but together with a several more events and these would be significant enough to no longer qualify as non-sequitur and instead be a fully functional argument.

Think of a bunch of straws in a haystack. Each straw could be considered non-sequitur taken individually, yet enough straws form a haystack. A person wouldn't dismiss the entire haystack as non-sequitur just because each individual straw adds little evidence for the conclusion, the existence of a haystack. Just as a person shouldn't dismiss small evidence that supports the conclusion, as long as there enough other straws to make a full argument.

Now if my entire argument was just the heat waves, yes this would be non-sequitur, but considering the other evidence available that accumulates with the heat-waves, the heat waves cannot be dismissed.



"In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. " Captalistslave


There is many alternative explanations for this. One is that awareness of global climate change has increased, and thus governments and their people are more prepared to deal with such events. Another, is that technology has increased and therefore weather stations are better able to warn residents of the danger.


"This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. " Captalistslave


If I wanted to prove that an invisible gas like carbon monoxide existed, showing the amount of people that died from carbon monoxide annually would be an effective method. As humans we do not take lightly the deaths of our fellow human beings. People want explanations. I contend that showing that 150,000 people die annually from man-made global climate change is an excellent indicator of whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists or not.

My opponent seems to have divided my argument into two charactories. Indirect evidence and direct small non-sequitor evidence. Dismissing the indirect evidence for not being direct, the 97% consensus, and the direct evidence for being too insignificant to prove man-made climate change. The direct and indirect evidence for anthropgenic climate change is massive. Just because, I did not directly show this massive evidence, does not mean I was incorrect. I decided it was best to give a brief argument from high quality sources. Knowing that the information is avaliable and nobody wants to read an extremely long debate.

Thank you for your time and energy reading.

Sources.
15. http://fallacyfiles.org...
Capitalistslave

Con

While what you state is true, this is a red herring. As seen from your same source, the consensuses holds.

"4. Discussion
Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no
position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situ-
ations where scientists ‘
. . . generally focus their discussions
on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather
than on matters about which everyone agrees
’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)." [6]
-stupidape

However, not about everyone does agree with this. Several problems were found with each of the studies that declared 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change occurs. For example, one such study was found to have only included 5% of respondents as climate scientists[11]. Then the very same study we are looking at above, used only the evidence that takes a position on anthropogenic climate change(for or against) and declared that 97% of climate scientists agree on it, when actually, that's only 97% of climate scientists who take a position, and doesn't take into account that some may believe it is inconclusive.

It was found, in fact, that about 15% of climate scientists, when asked to rank 1-7 where 1 is not convinced at all, and 7 is very much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is occuring, ranked from 1-4. Which is a significant amount of scientists who doubt it or are unsure(where 4 would be unsure).[12] Just because majority of climate scientists agree, doesn't mean we can just immediately dismiss the evidence and opinions that suggest climate change is not real.

"False, as shown above, the 97% censuses is true. " -stupidape
Well, as shown above, it's actually 85% who believe somewhat or more in anthropogenic climate change, and only 34.59% are absolutely sure[12] which means, technically, a majority have some doubts lingering in their minds otherwise they would have ranked it as 7.

.6 degrees Celsius to be exact. That is significant considering the rate of change. Ego systems do not have the ability to adjust to such rapid change. Also, the majority of the temperature change is happening in the last few decades. [7] As for the Co2, being a small amount this is another red herring. Due to positive feedback cycles the amount is increased dramatically. You can see that in the previous debate. Finally, natural Co2 is cycled naturally, unnatural Co2 accumulates as a greenhouse gas. [12]
-Stupidape
There are a number of problems with global climate models(GCM's) though, which is what this claim that the earth is warming is based off of. There is the general coldness problem, which indicates that the real temperature is actually colder than what the GCM's indicate. [13] Since we don't have a completely reliable way of measuring the global temperature, it can't be concluded that there even is warming.

"Natural Co2 emissions counterbalance themselves, [12] sun activity is at a low. [13] Other variables have been accounted for. [10]"
-Stupidape
However, it's been proven that the Earth's position in orbit and rotational axis is changing, to the point where it's getting slightly closer to the sun. This also would result in warming, which is not mentioned at all in the tenth article you linked, so it hasn't been accounted for. [13]

"Compared to the thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles that do support climate change."
-stupidape
There are likely more studies than just those 90, I doubt skeptical science put up every single study that goes against anthropogenic climate change. Also, just because there is a smaller amount of studies, doesn't mean they can somehow be dismissed as easily as you have. You need to analyze them and compare them to the studies claiming anthropogenic climate change is real. Then you determine which ones have the more valid claims. Since you have not done this, most likely, it is too soon to claim anthropogenic climate change is real, thus there is room for doubt.

"As for the incorect climate models, only one model can be correct. Therefore the majority will be incorrect. It would be a waste to make redunant correct models."
-stupidape
This doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model?

Sources:
[11] http://www.nationalreview.com...;
[12] file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_pe.pdf
[13] http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Here's are two great examples on climate change debates I just gave up on. My opponent's arguments had so many links and was confusing I couldn't handle it.

epidexipteryx was by far the best debater for global climate change and rammer5678 the second best. You would be the third best in my opinion, though you might take 2nd. As you can see I just gave up against epidexipteryx and rammer 5678. I became overloaded on information and the chaotic way the argument was presented.

Note, I was also off put by my opponent's having a much greater knowledge about climate change than myself. I thought I knew everything about climate change debates simply by watching Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. If I had to debate these two again, I might barely win. Yet, this wouldn't change the chaotic way they present their arguments. I would lose patience very quickly.

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"Would you say that I debated better, about the same, or worse than the people who actually believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth?" Capitalistslave

Much better than the average climate change denier, but there was one or two deniers who performed slightly better, but in a extremely annoying chaotic way that I couldn't handle. I basically conceded the debate, not due to their arguments, but due to the way the arguments were presented.

A good example of this chaotic style was Brontoraptor. I feared debating him/her the most because I would quickly become exhausted and frustrated debating him/her. Brontoraptor would literally post 15+ sources from bias sources often on 15+ different topics. Fortunately for me the voters seemed to feel the same way so the debate would end in a draw. Nobody able to follow the chaotic flow of my opponent's argument.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"In this case, they used peer-reviewed journals, and I was primarily using them for those peer-reviewed journals." Capitalistslave

If what you claim is true, why not link directly to the peer-reviewed journals? Nothing wrong with that, I do that all the time. I look at a right wing or left wing site respectively and look at the author's sources. Nobody will know the search started on a bias website.

Furthermore, on a bias website often the peer reviewed article doesn't state what they claim it said, thus the reason why it is bias. That's why linking to a bias website is a suboptimal idea. The website can link to twenty peer reviewed articles from top notch journals. Yet, if the journals don't state what the bias website says they do, the sources are useless.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I think after all of this I do still maintain my original position, which is that anthropogenic climate change happens.

I did this debate to see how well I would do arguing the opposing side mostly, and while I did find myself questioning my own position, I think this helped me become more confident that anthropogenic climate change occurs. This forced me to look into what the opposing side says, which I hadn't really done much of before, at least not in terms of looking up what evidence there is against anthropogenic climate change.

I don't concede the debate despite that we have the same position on this, I was still doing a serious debate as much as I could.

Would you say that I debated better, about the same, or worse than the people who actually believe anthropogenic climate change is a myth?
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Plus, I don't know of any left-wing source that would provide the information they did. Left-wing sources ignore evidence that is inconvenient to them just as right-wing sources do the same. Neither report on such stories, so to find scientific articles that put to question anthropogenic climate change, it was inevitable that at some point I would use a right-wing source, but again, I wasn't using them for their opinion as much as I was using them for the peer-reviewed articles they cited
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Stupidape: I take a look at the article in question itself, rather than judge them based on their bias. In this case, they used peer-reviewed journals, and I was primarily using them for those peer-reviewed journals.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"This doesn't provide anything substantive since you didn't claim to know which one is correct, so again, how do we know the entire globe is even warming if we aren't sure we have the correct climage model?" Captialistslave

Climate scientists can make a guess, and with each consecutive guess the scientist's prediction skills will be better. Hindsight is 20/20, afterwards we know which models is correct.

Let's say climate scientists create twenty climate models in the year 2014 for the year 2015. Then, guess which one is correct. At most only one can be correct. Then, at the end of the year 2015 the scientist will know which climate model was correct if any. If all were incorrect, they can point to the least incorrect model.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Nationalreview.com? I expect better of you Capitalistslave

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I noticed a couple of my links to sources in the last round aren't working, so I'll provide some additional details on how to get to them here:

For source 11, you just need to look up the article by Ian Tuttle in National review titled "The 97 percent solution"
For source 12, this is a link that will work: https://www.academia.edu...
You'll have to download it yourself though. I tried offering a link with the download already done, but I realized that link wouldn't work unless you've downloaded the study already.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I finished my r3 rebuttals. Still need to proof read the rebuttals though. Plan to post tomorrow or the next day. I need the rest. Took a lot of effort.
No votes have been placed for this debate.