The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
medv4380
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Anthropogenic global climate change.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
medv4380
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,127 times Debate No: 98605
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will contend that anthropegenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic global 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.


Sources.
0. http://www.debate.org...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
medv4380

Con

I accept.

Man Made Climate Change does not exist or is so immeasurable in its current form as to be nonexistent.

I ask that my opponent clearly define what is meant by Anthropogenic Global Climate Change as failing to do so will just create a moving goal post argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round two arguments

Outline.
I. Scientific consensus.
II. Co2 is the main driver.
III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural.
IV. Other supporting evidence
V. Sources


I. Scientific consensus.

Claim: A scientific consensus exists for anthropogenic climate change existence.

Warrant:

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." [0]

Impact: A scientific consensus is an agreement upon experts in the field. Think of one hundred heart surgeons agreeing upon a heart surgery technique. Heart surgeons would have more credibility than brain surgeons, dentists, and dermatologist. Even though all four are doctors, only the heart surgeons are most qualified on the subject of heart surgery.

The same is true for climate scientists. A geologist, a physicist, and a biologist are all scientists. Yet, only climate scientists are the top notch for qualifications. These are the experts of experts in the field of climate science. There is nobody more qualified then this group of people. The fact that they came to a consensus based upon multiple lines of empirical evidence, used social calibration to determine what qualified as evidence, and social diversity, from many different parts of the world gives an enormous impact.

The reason why social diversity is important is to avoid groupthink which can taint the consensus.

"What Is Groupthink?

Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus.
" [1]

Here is the peer reviewed sources that confirm the scientific consensus.

"J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618." [0]


II. Co2 is the main driver.

Claim: Co2 matter because the gas absorbs infrared radiation.

Warrant:"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating." [2]

Impact: Co2 absorbing infrared radiation plays a crucial part in the greenhouse gas rising of Earth's temperature.


Claim: Co2 makes up 81% of the greenhouse gases.

Warrant: [3] Pie graph should display here. Co2 is the largest contributors to green house gas.

Impact: This shows that Co2 is the main driver of climate change.


III. The Co2 is from humans in lieu of natural.



Claim: We know the Co2 is from humans due to human finger prints.

Warrant: [4]

Impact: These show that the Co2 is human caused as opposed to natural.


IV. Other supporting evidence

There is other supporting evidence, the over 400 ppm of Co2, sea level rise, global temperature rise which is now at 1.7 degree Fahrenheit, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, and many more. These all reinforce that anthropogenic climate change is happening. [5]

V. Sources
0. http://climate.nasa.gov...
1. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
2. https://scied.ucar.edu...
3. https://www.epa.gov...
4. https://skepticalscience.com...
5. http://climate.nasa.gov...
medv4380

Con

Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]

Imagine Mann has made a mistake lead him to believe it acceptable to ostracize Nedialko T. Nikolov[5], a Scientist for the USDA Forestry Service, and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever[6]. Forcing dissenters into hiding with a pseudonym, exiling from their livelihood, and insisting just because a lot of a group thinks something true makes it the realm of Politics and not Natural Philosophy which Science "claims" to be.

Man Made Climate Change will hang on its simplest of claims: Evaporation.

Anecdotally it may seem Mann has a point about Evaporation. After all, California is in a multiyear drought. However, we have a saying in Statistical Research. "The plural of anecdote is not data." Every winter dissenters will cite the cold and snow as their Anecdote of choice against Climate Change, and alarmists will cite heat waves each summer. These Anecdotes are not data and are only confirmation bias in action.

What is data? NOAA's collection of weather station data stored in the Global Historical Climatology Network is data. It's immune to a human saying "It's hot today, so it must be global warming," or "It's cold today, so global warming must be false."

Imagine Mann forgot among all the data collected by weather station the Evaporation Rate is one of them. The Forgotten Soldier goes out to measure how much water evaporated for a pan, so we know how much water escapes our reservoirs will not be forgotten by me.

I will now be providing data analysis anyone can replicate, and verify using the references in the acknowledgment section. I do not believe in hiding my data behind undisclosed weighting methodology, so I have even released the source code[4] for processing the GHCN dataset, and a more detailed analysis[7]. With a little knowledge of excel, any of these graphs can be replicated.

Figure 1[7] presents an interesting problem. Apparently, evaporation has kicked into overdrive, but what's missing is any indication of an increase in evaporation before 2005. What did man do in 2005 the muscle car of the 80's did not? What did we stop doing after the peak in 2011 causing evaporation to go back down which we're not doing more of today? It's plane to see this isn't Man Made.


Perhaps evaporation is not enough since there are only a couple of hundred stations at most collecting it in North America at any point in time. Precipitation is the result of Evaporation, and we've collected in far larger quantity for far longer. Figure 2[7] represents over a thousand stations collecting data over the last century.


Figure 2 confirms everything in Figure 1 with a greater level of fidelity. It is safe to say from 1950 to 2005 there was no meaningful change in precipitation. There is a small alteration around 1990 expectedly since NOAA, and the NWS began upgrading to automated rain gathering around this time[8].

Figure 2 makes our questions even more pressing. Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation? It does answer one important issue. Why, if there was no warming, do glaciers appear smaller than at the early half of the century? It is important to understand a glacier is in a state of perpetual melting which allows it to slide. The size and location of a glacier are related to the temperature, and the amount of moister it receives as fuel. In the 30's there is an apparent drop in precipitation which would be the same as cutting off the fuel for a glacier. This begins an Ice-albedo feedback loop[9] making it appear glaciers are retreating from temperature when they are being starved for fuel. It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation.

Because the timing is wrong for Climate Change, it is certainly not Man Made. Then what is the real cause? That is a separate debate, but some clues won't take too long.

Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data.

One of the simplest relations in climate science has socially inconvenient results for those who wish to raise the alarm on CO2.

Acknowledgements:
Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset - NOAA[2]
Sceptics Global Warming Analyzer[4]

[1] https://youtu.be...
[2] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
[3] https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov...
[4] https://sourceforge.net...
[5] http://retractionwatch.com...
[6] https://www.heartland.org...
[7] https://drive.google.com...
[8] http://www.weather.gov...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] https://www.nasa.gov...
[11] https://science.nasa.gov...
[12] http://spaceweather.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals

Opponent's statements will be in bold and italics, mine in plain text.


"Dr. Michael E. Mann said, "One of the simplest relationships in all of atmospheric science is that as you warm the surface, you will get more evaporation."[1]" medv4380

Correct, here is why. "Evaporation is one of the two forms of vaporization.

It is the process whereby atoms or molecules in a liquid state (or solid state if the substance sublimes) gain sufficient energy to enter the gaseous state.

It is the opposite process of condensation.

The thermal motion of a molecule of liquid must be sufficient to overcome the surface tension and evaporate, that is, its kinetic energy must exceed the work function of cohesion at the surface.

Evaporation therefore, proceeds more quickly at higher temperature, at higher flow rates between the gaseous and liquid phase and in liquids with lower surface tension (i.e. higher vapor pressure)." [6]


"Imagine Mann has made a mistake" medv4380

This paragraph is conjecture. My opponent has not proven Mann has made a mistake.


In the next paragraph notice my opponent's word choices. Dissenters and alarmists. There is a reason why climate change deniers are called deniers. This is because deniers use a thought process called denial. Denial is when a person comes to a conclusion and then looks for facts to reinforce the conclusion. Skeptics take the full body of evidence and then come to a conclusion. Scientists are skeptics. Therefore, the correct language is deniers and scientists.

I'm skipping some sections because either the argument is truthful or so vague I don't see how it related to the debate.


"Why didn't the explosion of CO2 in the 70's show any increase in Precipitation?" medv4380

Temperature, precipitation, and evaporation are all linked. The link between temperature and evaporation is already shown. [6] Higher temperature also increase precipitation. Rain forests are known for being hot and humid. The east Antarctica ice sheet is increasing in sea ice mass due to increase precipitation which is due to increased temperatures. Therefore, higher temperatures increase both precipitation and evaporation.

" However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases." [7]

Now that warming temperatures causes an increase in both evaporation and precipitation has been established, the temperature in the 70's is where to look.

"Most mentioned is Rasool 1971 which projected that if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it may trigger an ice age. While Rasool underestimated climate sensitivity to CO2, its basic assertion that the climate would cool with a dramatic increase of aerosols was correct. However, aerosol levels dropped rather than increased." [8]

Man-made aerosols was responsible for the cooling trend in the 70s. Thus the temperature decreased despite Co2 increasing, lowering evaporation and precipitation. This is a cherry picking fallacy on my opponent's part. By focusing on the period of cooling caused by aerosols in the 70's and ignoring the overall trend that more Co2 increases temperature which increase precipitation and evaporation.

Cherry picking "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." [9]


"It even explains the Antarctic glacial anomaly where Antarctica has Gained more Ice than it has lost[10] because the amount of fuel is much higher now due to an increase in precipitation." medv4380



You are correct, that some glaciers are gaining mass. Yet, the overall trend is that glaciers are losing mass.

The graph above shows that overall glaciers are losing mass. [10]






Here's a graph of the temperatures to further prove that temperatures were low in the 70's but the overall trend is upwards after the 1950s.

[11]



"Shortly after NASA launched its THEMIS probe, they observed unpredicted phenomena where a North Polarity Coronal Mass Ejection hit the Earths North Pole and ripped it open rather than be deflected[12]. The second is the spike in Precipitation correlates to start of Solar Cycle 24 ejecting two X-class flares and interacting with the Earths EM Field[12]. This would explain why the spikes in the data occur when they do, and why they don't appear in the previous century worth of data." medv4380

This last paragraph is jumping to conclusions. My opponent does not sufficiently explain how these phenomena effect climate change.

Fact: Increases in Co2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of climate change.

Myth: Other causes are the primary driver.

Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. [12]

My opponent uses various sources. One is the low crediblity Heartland institute.

"Factual Reporting: LOW Notes: The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984. " [13]

"The Heartland Institute is a stock-issue conservative/libertarian "think tank" based in Chicago and founded by Joseph L. Bast. It has ties to Richard Mellon Scaife, Exxon, and Philip Morris (the usual suspects). " [14]

Another source is wikipedia. "Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. "[15]

Finally, my opponent uses Ivar Giaever.

"While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows." [16]

Ivar Giaever is a fake expert. Giaever lacks the credential and experience in climate change.

Sources
6. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
7. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
8. https://skepticalscience.com...
9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
10. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
11. https://www.climate.gov...
12. http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... to conclusions
13. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
14. http://rationalwiki.org...
15. isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
16. http://www.snopes.com...
medv4380

Con

My opponent seems to be under the impression that just because a group of scientists believes something is true, it must be true, and listening to dissenting arguments is worthless. This is the pinnacle of group think, and science has fell victim to it before.

Not too long ago, 1969, Ray David designed and performed an experiment to count the number of neutrinos coming from the Sun's Nuclear Fusion. Unfortunately, as Ray David put it, he had "socially unacceptable result." He had counted fewer than his experiment should have if the scientific consensus were right at the time. Astrophysics and Theoretical Physics mocked him and his results. No amount of refinement would ever find those missing neutrinos.

In 2002, dying of Alzheimer's, he received the Nobel Prize for that work. Scientific Group Think had refused to update, or address the issue within the Standard Modle of physics because the Group said so.

The transcripts from Nova's "The Ghost Particle" will be enlightening on the crimes of the political body of scientific consensus. [13]

Scientific Consensus flies in the face of Philosophy. At its core, it's an ad populum argument. Believe this because these people believe it's true. It is in rebellion to a well-reasoned argument.

It is not in dispute that CO2 is a part of the Greenhouse effect. Nor is man being a source of CO2. What is in dispute is whether or not the CO2 added has contributed to climate change at all.

One complimentary claim to my Evaporation data is that the Greenhouse effect is at saturation, and adding more Greenhouse gasses suffer the law of diminishing returns resulting in null or negligible changes[14]. I'm not a fan of Greenhouse saturation because it is like my opponents CO2 argument. A lot of hypothesis and rhetoric, and rarely accompanied by data to support the claim. However, my figure 1 fully supports this claim. If we are to believe Mann, an expert in Climate Change, then if we warmed the Earth we would get more Evaporation. If CO2 were to blame, then we should have a correlation between CO2 and evaporation.

I have no reason to doubt Mann's claim because anyone with an oven or dehydrator can test it. But if it's true then this is what the correlation between CO2 and Evaporation from 1980 to 2005 looks like. This is what a Zero Correlation looks like.

Figure 3


The only conclusion is CO2 does not correlate to Evaporation, and since Evaporation is tied to heat, there was no warming for that period via CO2. Now after 2005 there is increases in evaporation, but that presents an issue. In 2011 in both Figure one and two, there is a definite spike implying an increase in temperature. However, since it's a spike, it goes back down and doesn't come back up until 2014. We've never decreased CO2 emissions, and if CO2 were the cause, this would be a contradiction. The conclusion remains the same that CO2 has little to do with the observed Climate Change.

As for the claim of "other" supporting evidence such as temperature. Even using the weather station data from the GHCN dataset, it's impossible to replicate the temperature graphs used to support global warming. The reason for this is that the Station Data, and Satalight Data, are heavily dependent on weighting[15]. Now if the weighting was fully disclosed for public scrutiny perhaps a solid argument can be made for or against the temperature weights. Figure 4 is the closest anyone can get without having direct access to the weighting.

Figure 4


Perhaps Global Warming Advocates need a lesson about relying on Blind Faith.

[13] http://www.pbs.org...
[14] http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...
[15] https://www.carbonbrief.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round four defense

Outline.
I. Scientific consensus.
II. Co2 is unsaturated.
III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation.
IV. Temperature is increasing.
V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint.
VI. Sources


I. Scientific consensus.

Fact: The scientific consensus used very high standards including being based upon a consilience of evidence, social calibration, and social diversity. The climate scientists' findings were published in scholarly peer reviewed journals.

Myth 1: The scientific consensus is an ad populum fallacy.


Fallacy 1: The fallacy is the fallacy fallacy. People misuse fallacies all the time. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Wouldn't it be cool if you said "I am a millionaire" and it came true?

"Scientific consensus

What's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X? Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences:

Scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.
Scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority, but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. (Note that even long-established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.) " [17]

Myth 2: The scientific consensus is groupthink.

Fallacy 2: Misrepresentation, comparing past scientific consensus to present fails to take into account that today's standards are more robust than standards decades ago. This is like comparing a incandescent light bulb to a CFL (compact fluoride lamp) light bulb and claiming, the incandescent light bulb is an energy hog, therefore the CFL is an energy hog too. This is also jumping to conclusions.


II. Co2 is unsaturated.

Fact: Co2 is nowhere near saturation point. Co2 has been much higher in the past with much higher temperatures. Venus has much higher Co2 and has much higher temperatures.

Myth: Co2 is saturated.

Fallacy: Oversimplification. The height of which heat is escaping is rising. Meaning more heat is getting trapped in the lower atmosphere. Focusing solely on the air temperature absorption is missing the bigger picture that more air is getting warmed. The amount of heat escaping to space is decreasing. Think of your house, you can increase the heat by turning up the furnace or by better insulating your house. [18]

Picture here:




III. Co2 increases heat thus evaporation.

Fact: Co2 increase greenhouse warming. More heat means higher evaporation rates due to molecules breaking surface tension easier when excited.

Myth: There evaporation rate has not increased therefore heat has not increased.

Fallacy: Cherry picking most likely. My opponent does not tell how he/she got the graph in figure three. Is this worldwide or over a single location? Some areas will become wetter while others drier due to changes in the climate. Since the vast majority of the Earth is Ocean, it is safe to say evaporation rates have increased.

Again, my opponent's argument and graph is too vague for me to fully address. Another possibility is my opponent is measuring the ocean's height. In that case water that is warmer expands. My opponent is asking me to stab in the dark because he/she failed to make a clear argument.


IV. Temperature is increasing.

Fact: Temperature increasing is a well established fact. From direct measurements including weather stations to indirect measurements including Co2 rising, sea level rise, more heat waves and more intense heat waves, less hurricanes but stronger hurricanes, higher humidity, and many more indicators.

Myth: Temperature is not increasing.

Fallacy: Misrepresentation. First, figure 4 provides supporting evidence for my side of the debate. The overall trend is upwards. The problem with raw data without a trend line is it is difficult to detect the overall upwards trend in temperature. As anyone can see in figure 4 the highest temperature is past 2010.

V. Science is a skeptic's viewpoint.

Fact: Science is a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is the reason why there is the scientific method and peer review journals. Science is the polar opposite of blind faith. This is calling black white instead of black.

Myth: Science is blind faith.

Fallacy: Appeal to emotion fallacy comparing science to religion. The idea is to give the audience a cheap jolt and hope they remember the myth.

VI. Sources
17. http://rationalwiki.org...
18. https://skepticalscience.com...
medv4380

Con

I have to start this final round off with thanking who's made this argument much easier. Had then President-Elect Trump not terrified climate change scientists into archiving the data that they had kept away from the public this final round wouldn't be as climactic[16]. I'm surprised that my opponent didn't use the time to incorporate changes that were starting to come out just as I was wrapping up the previous round.

On February 4th retired NOAA Scientist Dr. John Bates came forward damning NOAA for it's failure to Archive data like study used to refute the 'pause' argument for the Paris Agreement[19]. By the 5th it made it to the House Science Committee[18]. Thomas Karl has since admitted to failing archive the information before publication, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine, Jeremy Berg, where the study was published has said: "Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations. We will consider our options. It could include retracting that paper." [17]

How can a study be published as Peer Reviewed when the study was never archived before publication so that fellow NOAA scientists or the public could review it? Blind Faith is you asking someone to believe you, and not providing a way to verify it.

My opponent seems to be under the misconception that Figure 4 supports his argument. He better hope that Figure 4 is wrong because the high temperature in 2012 is that same as the high temperature in 1936. The clear trend from 1936 to 1980, or possible 1996, would mean that as we increased CO2 temperature dropped, but then reversed course after that. That would be a contradiction and refute the CO2 argument. Without the weighting, Figure 4 doesn't say anything for either argument.

It's odd for my opponent to accuse me of cherry picking the evaporation data in his defense, but not in his rebuttal of my argument. Perhaps he knows he failed to refute my claim, and realized that data proves my claim beyond all doubt.

In his mind, it has to be a fallacy, and he just happened to pick Cherry Picking without proof of Cherry Picking. In spite of the referenced source the GHCN dataset from NOAA. In spite of the publicly available source code. In spite of the Evaporation Data labeled, All Station, and Year Round stations he insists I must be cherry picking data. The only reason for the two sets is that some stations are seasonal resulting in some confusing output in the later years of the graph. Both are still in sync before 2005.

Even given that I openly admitted that the Evaporation Set alone might just be too small since we only measure evaporation near lakes and reservoirs. That's why Figure 2 exists which collaborates the data in the evaporation data.

He refuses to attack the GHCN dataset because doing so would throughout his entire argument since NOAA bases all their climate change argument on it. He refuses to attack the methodology because it is sound. He is left only with a Cherry Picked, false, unsubstantiated claim of Cherry Picking. Where is a dataset more inclusive than the GHCN? Where is his counter evidence showing what data I missed?

In the ultimate sense of irony, my opponent and I already agree. He is just drowning in cognitive dissonance making him unwilling to look at the data for himself. Man-Made Global Warming is the only Man-Made Myth here today.

Thank you, and I urge you to vote and share this debate.

[16] http://www.cnn.com...
[17] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[18] https://science.house.gov...
[19] https://judithcurry.com...
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 10 months ago
ILikePie5
Do y'all mind if I use this debate in one of my debates. It will be just the URL to this debate. Specifically, I'm asking Medv for his arguments against Anthropogenic Climate Change. It would be much appreciated if y'all could reply as soon as possible.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
There are peer reviewed articles with the denier's point of view. Here's the problem, many of those scientists were legitimate skeptics who now agree with the 97% scientific consensus. There was not as much evidence available back in 1994 when the article you linked to was published, so there was more scientists who took the opposite point of view.

The vast majority of peer reviewed journal articles and scientific organization support the existence of man-made global climate changes.

"Volume 83, Issues 1"2, 1994"

You can claim ad hominem all you want, but at the core ad hominem is a logical fallacy. A layman shouldn't do certain tasks, it is dangerous. You can perceive that I am calling you a layman, but again I have no way of knowing your credentials. Since it is logical to assume that unicorns don't exist until proven otherwise, it is logical to assume you don't have credentials and thus are a layman.

Based upon the evidence that your conclusions are different than that of scholarly peer reviewed articles and given the pitfalls of processing raw data, it is safe to assume the error is on your part until proven otherwise.

As for Denise Minger this is evidence of how someone can misinterpret raw data and strengthens my case.
Posted by medv4380 10 months ago
medv4380
You place an awful lot of selective faith in peer reviewed work. Nedialko T. Nikolov is published in Peer Reviewed Journals and is on the side of dissent.

http://www.sciencedirect.com...

Your argument appears to be antithetical to debate. Rather than attack the data or the method you attack my character, and your own. It's a nice Ad Hominem, but you don't actually know my background and skill to make an argument of calling me a layman when it comes to processing data. Though, I'll take your word on you being a layman. Since you're unable and unwilling to attack the data or methodology.

As for Dinise Minger that's an interesting strawman. You have no way of impugning my credibility so you bring up someone who's made a very public cherry picking, and analysis mistake. Someone easy to discredit, but has no bearing on me or this debate.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
"If you're not qualified to process the data then what makes you think that you're qualified to debate it?" medv4380

I know there is problems with the layperson trying to interpret raw data. I know that Denise Minger for example, only took half the raw data and came to all sorts of wrong conclusions in her assessment of the China Study.

As for scientific peer reviewed journals integrity, they are very high, you can find a few examples where something slipped through the cracks, but overall peer reviewed articles and journals are the highest quality of information a person can use.

http://www.vegsource.com...
Posted by medv4380 10 months ago
medv4380
I'm not asking the average person. I'm asking you, an individual who believes so fervently in Global Warming that you come here to debate it. If you're not qualified to process the data then what makes you think that you're qualified to debate it?

And yes, Citation 2 of my argument is the same as the link you provided. You want the ghcn_all.tar.gz

If the Journals are so perfect, then why is the Peer Review System broken to the point where AI Gibberish papers are published? Read up on Retraction Watch and the other Journal reform outlets, and you'll realize the system either broke or never worked as intended in the first place.

Here are some examples.
https://www.theguardian.com...
http://news.mit.edu...

And let us not forget Yoshitaka Fujii who published hundreds of fraudulent papers accepted, and unchallenged for two decades.

Or my personal favorite, the persecution of Ray Davis by Theoretical Physicists, and Astrophysicists because his Data contradicted their belief that Neutrinos must be massless for nearly half a century.
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
I don't think the average person is qualified to process raw data. Second, if there was a flaw so obvious, don't you think the media and peer reviewed journals would be flooded? I assume this is where you got your data from:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
Posted by medv4380 10 months ago
medv4380
Since you're so afraid of the data, do you want me to check the GHCN dataset for you with that 50mm analysis so I can more thoroughly rip it to shreds?
Posted by medv4380 10 months ago
medv4380
Nice source but it doesn't contradict my data.

Did you ask yourself why they cherry picked 1950 to 2003 when the article was last updated in 2016? It shouldn't be too hard to generate the graph the last century, given that the US has been the global leader in weather stations since President Grant believed them to be critical in winning wars. Did you bother to ask why it's cherry picking out desert weather stations? It doesn't say so explicitly, but it does create an arbitrary 50mm of rain to be included and an arbitrarily short period. You see, if you have a changing weather pattern with the Jet Stream that you can't see because they've cherry picked out all the data the would expose the issue. Why not use 1900 to 2016 with weather stations reporting 90% of their data, just for quality, and using the change in the 90th percentile, or most extreme days of any month? That way we're not cherry picking seasons that get a little rain. We're not cherry picking climates that get a little rain. And we're not cherry picking an arbitrarily short time that could hide evidence that we've collected.

Without access to the Raw analysis, there is also a couple of other explanations which is why I object to not having access to the data and processing methods. Was the scientist aware of what happens when you add in weather stations after the start of the analysis period?

As for water vapor over the oceans, it's also for an arbitrarily short period. Though making the claim that most of the increase occurs after 1970 when the farthest back the data shown goes is 1988 is more than a little deceptive. And again stopping in 2004 with a graph when data should exist in 2016. Pretty convenient the data doesn't include the period where my data says it should be going crazy when that data should exist somewhere.

Why are you so afraid to look at the GHCN data? It's straight from NOAA. Those consensus driven people that you care so much about
Posted by Stupidape 10 months ago
Stupidape
Found something on evaporation, evaporation is measured by the water vapor above the oceans.

As you can see from the chart in the link evaporation is increasing.

https://skepticalscience.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 11 months ago
Greyparrot
Stupidapemedv4380Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In round 1, Con clearly asked for a definition of AGCC, and never received it. Round 2 for pro was a disaster. It had zero data from other well known sources of warming, instead choosing to believe the only variable that exists is CO2...An incredibly weak argument. But the fatal blow for pro was that in that same round, he posted verbatim: "Impact: These show that the Co2 is human caused as opposed to natural. " The claim that natural sources have zero ...not positive..or negative to any degree...but exactly ZERO...contributions to CO2 is such a ludicrous position that the entire argument for pro is already shattered at this point. Had Pro simply provided a definition for AGCC and stated to WHAT DEGREE AGCC was responsible, this would have been a more coherent debate. To claim AGCC is 100 percent responsible is an untenable position to argue with current science.