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

Anthropogenic global 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: 12/27/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 720 times Debate No: 98464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
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.


Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1]


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...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Repcon

Con

I accept the debate rules, as well as the given definition.
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. I will go a step further and explain why if there is so much scientific certainty,yet there is so much political uncertainty. This blame can be placed on the climate change denial movement funded by the fossil fuel industry.


"These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas— even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet." [6]


"The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst.
Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays’s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change.
His comments are part of a growing chorus calling for more transparency from oil and gas companies about how their balance sheets may be affected by the global shift away from fossil fuels. As governments adopt stricter environmental policies, there’s increasing risk that companies’ untapped deposits of oil, gas and coal may go unused, turning valuable reserves into stranded assets of questionable value.
“There will be lower demand for fossil fuels in the future, and by definition that means lower prices” Lewis said." [7]


"The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997." [8]

"Fossil fuel firms are still bankrolling climate denial lobby groups " [9]

"One of the world’s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity’s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend.

Wei-Hock Soon (known mainly as “Willie”) is aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and has written papers on how the sun’s role in the Earth’s climate outshines the warming impact of humans burning fossil fuels." [10]


"Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, represents Rhode Island in the Senate.

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise." [11]

"Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. CEO’s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people — all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change. Enough is enough. It’s time for a political revolution that takes on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerates our transition to clean energy, and finally puts people before the profits of polluters.

— Senator Bernie Sanders" [12]


The fossil fuel industry is a racketeering enterprise and must answer for their crimes. Fine the climate change deniers and/or jail them, the planet is at stake. Climate change will come down hardest on the poor.


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...
6. http://www.ucsusa.org...
7. https://www.bloomberg.com...
8. http://www.greenpeace.org...
9. https://www.theguardian.com...
10. https://thinkprogress.org...
11. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
12. https://berniesanders.com...

Repcon

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals


"Studies Contradict Man Made Warming
Anthropogenic climate change is not real. Yes, the climate changes, but humans aren't the cause of it." Repcon

There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority.


"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." [1]


The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle.


"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." [13]


"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. " Repcon


"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW." [14]


The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very 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." [15]


"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." Repcon


Climate scientists aren't lying to us. There are multiple safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. Just for starters the peer review system.

As for Mars we understand so little about Mars atmosphere that this is weak evidence at best. Furthermore, the tempature increase on Mars can be explained by dust storms.


"Conclusion

The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations."[16]


Solar activity from the Sun is at a low.

"Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began." [16]

Thanks for debating.

Sources.
13. https://skepticalscience.com...
14. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
15. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
16. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
Repcon

Con

But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen" -Stupidape

This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well.

"Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so." - Stupidape
Yes, weather related deaths are happening. And they are declining. According to an article by a Department of the Interior Science and Technology policy analyst Indur M. Goklany, global death rates from weather-related disasters are declining [2].

"Death rates for the different categories of extreme events were generally lower in the 1990s and early to mid-2000s than in previous decades.".
"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered the transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."- Stupidape
In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that,
"Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)."
Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous.
Goklany also says that,
"Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change."
This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated.

"I will contend that anthropogenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent."-Stupidape
Arguing that "anthropogenic climate change" is to blame for weather-related deaths doesn't prove it exists; it is simply an effect. An effect that wasn't supposed to be debated in the first place.

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%"100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al."- Stupidape
The consensus cited is one example of how scientists manipulate data to push an agenda. Cook reviewed 11,914 abstracts, but only used 4,014 in his sample size because they expressed an opinion on global warming [3]. And from there, he got his 97% consensus, which is cherry picking, since he excluded the papers that did not give an opinion. But even THIS subset can't be relied on, as Former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Georgia and professor at the university Dr. David Legates and his colleagues reviewed Cook's consensus. Legates and his team found that,

"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not, in fact, supported it." [4].

Popular Technology reached out to scientists whose articles were in Cook's consensus. They said their papers were falsely classified or not included if they didn't endorse man-made climate change.

"[Interviewer] Dr. Carlin, your paper A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; 'Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize'.
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Carlin: No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. [5].
Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

"The fossil fuel industry risks losing $33 trillion in revenue over the next 25 years as global warming may drive companies to leave oil, natural gas and coal in the ground, according to a Barclays Plc energy analyst."- Stupidape
Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said,

"Government regulations and other efforts to cut carbon emissions will inevitably slash demand for fossil fuels, jeopardizing traditional energy producers, Mark Lewis, Barclays"s head of European utilities equity research, said Monday during a panel discussion in New York on financial risks from climate change."
Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.

"The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997. One of the world"s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity"s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend."- Stupidape.
First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing.

"The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks." [7].

"Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. CEO"s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people " all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." - Stupidape

Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry, {continued on http://pastebin.com...}
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round four defense


"This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well." Repcon


First my opponent states there are hundreds of thousands of scientists within this field. That may be true, but considering each journal interviews has multiple scientist opinions changes the numbers. Furthermore, science magazine was not the only source I used. Finally, my opponent links to a long article in his/her source #1. My opponent has not met his/her burden of proof by quoting the relevant information. Having me proof a negative, that the information is not within the source would put an unfair burden on me.

"he 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 (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers" [5]

As seen here there are 11,944 abstracts reviewed in this article. As for the consensus changing, my opponent is correct, that science does come to incorrect conclusions and theories are changed to meet the new information. Despite this, this not a coin flip situation. The probability is very high that the scientists are correct in their current assessment. That man-made global climate change is real.


"In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that,
"Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)."
Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous.
Goklany also says that,
"Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change."
This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated." Repcon

Even .2% of all global deaths would be a lot. Considering

"5.9 million children under age five died in 2015,
16 000 every day " [17]


.2% of 5.9 million might not seem like a lot percentage wise, yet the absolute number of 11, 800 children under five annually is still high. An analogy would be that homicides involving guns don't make up even the top ten list of all cause mortality. Still, people tend to get upset about these deaths. Furthermore, showing people died from a cause is a good way to show that cause exists. Humans care about each other.

My opponent then delves into whether not a scientific consensus occurred. I find this part of the argument confusing and difficult to follow. The fact that my opponent used pastebin only further complicates the matter.

My opponent claims that the true consensus number is .3% as opposed to 97.1%. I doubt science magazine missed up by such a large error or any of the other scholarly peer reviewed articles.


"Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said," Repcon

I can understand the fossil fuel industries objections, but the fossil fuel industry appears to spreading misinformation. Most likely you are in denial about man-made global climate change is due to this misinformation campaign.


"Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place." Repcon

I've already proven global climate change exists, I'm only showing why there are still deniers.


"First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing." Repcon


Yes, but independent studies have also verified government research.

"An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real." [19]


"Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry," Repcon

The oil industry seems to be just fine. Just the fact that they could lose 33 trililon dollars shows their wealth and influence.


"First off, there are no crimes committed, and you haven't provided a source to back it up. Second off, jailing climate deniers is unconstitutional. One reason is known as the first amendment, which grants freedom of speech [8]. Another reason is that the U.S. isn't a facist government, and pretty much goes against facism, so good luck trying to get deniers arrested. Nice try, though." Repcon


The climate change deniers are selling false information. They are committing fraud just for starters.

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." [20]


Number five, injury to the alleged victim as a result, many people die annually from anthropogenic climate change. This is fraud that results in the death of the victim. This is immoral. The first amendment does not protect criminals from commiting fraud. If anyone is the fascist here it is the fossil fuel industry. The poor get hit the hardest, minorities tend to be poorer. This could be seen as the mass murder of minorities on the fossil fuel industries part.


Sources.
17. http://www.who.int...
18. https://skepticalscience.com...
19. http://www.cnn.com...
20. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Repcon

Con

"There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority.
'The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' [1]" - Stupidape

As I had stated in my Round 3 argument, those consensuses are unreliable as they focus on a small amount of climate scientists and not all of the climate scientists as it is claimed. So you can't say 97% of climate scientists agree because 97% of people in a consensus believe in anthropogenic climate change.

"The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle.
'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.' [13]"- Stupidape
The lag isn't a misunderstanding; it's evident. If you look at the graph, you can clearly see the lag of CO2 behind temperature [1]. And there have been times where CO2 and temperature went in opposite directions, which contradicts the theory of CO2 affecting temperature.

"'Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.' [14]" - Stupidape
If you look at the emails in full context, you can see that the scientists manipulated data to prove their research, and knew that global warming wasn't man made [2].

"The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."- Stupidape
Actually, according to the website you sourced, National Review has a high rating of factual reporting [3]
. "Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news."
And it's also hippocritical of you to call me out on bias sources, as your arguments are chock FULL of them. Greenpeace, one of your sources, was categgorized under "Conspiracy-Psudoscience", which is for sources that "publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media." [4], noting on Greenpeace that it is a "Left wing environmental activist group. Strays from science on a few issues, otherwise not too bad." Next is Thinkprogress, which has a large liberal bias. Here's what the media fact checking website said about them:
"ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Has a left wing bias in story selection and has failed some fact checks including these from Snopes."[5]. Here you are critisizing me for using a source with a right wing bias, yet you're using a source that actually FAILED factchecks. And finally, there's skeptical science. A website started by and managed by scientist John Cook, famous for, as I pointed out, manipulated information to push his political agenda.
"However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."[6].
As for my argument about Mars, we know enough to say that it isn't the CO2 levels. So with that in mind, and the fact that it is the closest planet to Earth, it throws the argument of man made climate change into question, for if CO2 doesn't raise Mars' temperature, then it can't raise Earth's. Nice debating you.

Sources
[1]- http://joannenova.com.au...
[2]- http://pastebin.com...
[3]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[4]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[5]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
[6]-https://wattsupwiththat.com...
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
" What, oil companies? Funding us? Oh, heavens no! The film contends that while those alarmist environmentalists often accuse those who "question the mainstream science of global warming" of "being paid by private industry to tell lies", this is in fact completely untrue. Stott, Ball and Calder all bluntly deny ever having received any energy industry funding, though in Ball's case this claim has been shown to be wrong. George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that Ball has received funding from Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, both of which have received tons of fossil fuel money.[22] "

http://rationalwiki.org...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for telling me about greenpeace.org being a conspiracy-pseudo science website. To be fair, I did cross reference the information with other less bias sources.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Since this is Repcon first debate, I am going to post another debate in case Repcon ends up forfeiting early.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Some deny man-made climate change completely.
Posted by elikakohen 1 year ago
elikakohen
Perhaps a Rewording? Man's Contribution to Climate Change is Significant

Perhaps I am just misunderstanding the purpose of this debate - but :

1. No one disputes that the climate changes.
2. No one disputes that man has affected the climate.
3. What IS disputed is the "Exact Significance" of man's contribution to climate change.

The IPCC reports that I have read use the term "significantly" - without any substantial means to quantify what that really means.

THAT is the actual issue. Skeptics contend that the IPCC's findings do not necessarily show that man's contribution to climate change is all that "Significant" - relatively.

So - is man's contribution to climate change really effecting the environment as significantly as the IPCC claims? Skeptics say that the IPCC's data does not support this assertion.
No votes have been placed for this debate.