Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community
In statistics, an "unusual event" occurs less than five percent of the time, or once out of twenty. If my opposition finds one credible scientist or study that concludes against climate change for every twenty I find that acknowledge it, he will win this debate.
Here is my opening list:
1. "Turtle mating patterns buffer against disruptive effects of climate change" Proceeds of the Royal Society (2012)
2. "Monitoring EU Emerging Infectious Disease Risk Due to Climate Change" ScienceMag (2012)
3. "Biodiversity ensures plant"pollinator phenological synchrony against climate change" Ecology & Organismal Biology (2013)
4. "Climate change: How do we know?" NASA (2013)
Authors: Undefined Count (NASA)
5. "Evaluating the effects of climate change on summertime ozone using a relative response factor approach for policymakers" Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (2012)
6. "Climate Change Effects on Vegetation Distribution and Carbon Budget in the United States" Ecosystems (2001)
7. "Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999" ScienceMag (2003)
8. "Reconstructing climate and environmental change in northern England through chironomid and pollen analyses: evidence from Talkin Tarn, Cumbria" Journal of Paleolimnology (2004)
9. "Effects of climate-driven primary production change on marine food webs: Implications for fisheries and conservation" Global Change Biology (2012) http://espace.library.uq.edu.au...
10. "Beyond climate change attribution in conservation and ecological research" Ecology and Organismal Biology (2013)
11. "The Impact of Anthropogenic Climate Change on North Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks" American Meteorological Society (2013)
12. "Revisiting the urban politics of climate change" Environmental Politics (2013)
13. "Perception of Climate Change" Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2012)
14. "Climate Change Impacts on Marine Ecosystems" Annual Reviews (2012)
15. "Climate System Response to External Forcings and Climate Change Projections in CCSM4" American Meteorological Society (2012)
16. "The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?" ScienceMag
17. "Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate change" Nature (2012)
18. "Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise" Nature (2012)
19. "An integrated biophysical and socio-economic framework for analysis of climate change adaptation strategies: The case of a New Zealand dairy farming system" Environmental Modelling and Software (2012)
20. "The Effects of Tropospheric Ozone on Net Primary Productivity and Implications for Climate Change" Annual Reviews (2012)
21. "A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems." Nature (2003).
22. "Extinction risk from climate change" Nature 2004.
23. "Ecological responses to recent climate change." Nature (2002).
24. "Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security" Science (2004).
25. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" ScienceMag
Assuming no overlap between authors and papers, these 25 references describe the opinions of 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real.
Assuming all 25 of these are credible, my opposition may cite 2 scientific studies, or the opinions of 37 credible scientists, to invalidate my assertion climate change denial is unusual in the scientific community.
I look forward to having this debate.
We do this because it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of "Climate Change".
For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools. It has been happening since the beginning of the Earth, and Scientists are currently studying it via the geological record in both Ice Cores and in Earth Coring samples.
"Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the "scientific theory" that HUMANS are causing the Climate to Change. Usually blamed on the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Global Warming" as opposed to "Global Cooling" are way too ambiguous of phrases for this discussion and should not be used.
I will break this up into 3 separate segments because I see it has 3 features, they are related, but they all play their part :
Segment One: Climate Change:
Climate Change, as opposed to Anthropogenic Global Warming, is a natural process, and includes both increases and decreases in temperature.
According to the Geologic Record, from what we know from the Ice Cores and Sediment Cores, we are currently in a cool period.
The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c. The current, short term, average temperature is only about 14c. The maximum estimated temperatures are up around 25c and the Minimum around 10c.
The simple conclusion from just those basic facts is we are generally cooler than what is "normal" for our planet. Therefore what we consider "warming" is simply just a "return to normal". Any "hype" about "the end of the world" doesn't even begin to be relevant until we start to clime over 18c, because the Earth was still active and very much alive with temperatures as high as 25c.
The Earth also has its own ideas when it comes to warming and CO2. For much of the Earth's history, CO2 level have been much higher (a mean of about 3500 ppm) than they are now, with a high of about 7000 ppm and a low of about 180 ppm. Interestingly, the CDC says the "warning" level for CO2 is 5000 ppm. For Humans, CO2 becomes dangerous (asphyxiation) at 30,000 - 100,000 ppm. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is not clear and we have scientists arguing if increases in CO2 precede warming periods, or if the increase is caused by the warming period. In either case, one thing is clear, even at 7000 ppm, both humans and plants would survive. It is estimated that the Optimal concentration for CO2 for plant growth is between 1500 and 2500 ppm, well below the CDC's limits.
The net effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is the increase of biomass (green plant-life) on the planet. More biomass equals more O2.
The current measurement of CO2 is about 380 ppm. The current levels of CO2 are about on par with what existed before the 1820s.
The simple conclusion is CO2 levels are not abnormally high, nor are they odd, out of the ordinary, or even dangerous in any way. The opposite is true, however, that the CO2 levels appear to be normalizing and benefiting biomass which is a benefit, not a detriment.
We have now established a baseline. The average Temperatures are up around 18c, and the CO2 level around 3500 ppm. This would appear to be "normal" for the Earth, even if it doesn't seem "normal" from our current point of view.
Now, I would like to look at some "evidences" of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and real Climate Change:
1) Warming has caused more and more severe hurricanes.
Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.
2) Warming has caused more and more severe wildfires.
Fact is, the number of wildfires and the number of acres burned have remained consistent for at least the past 13 years. I have included the graph in the comments section, and this is where I got the information:
3) Arctic ice is melting.
There was a 29% increase in arctic ice this year.
4) Antarctic ice is melting.
Antarctic ice is also increasing, hitting a 35 year high this year.
5) Polar bears are dying off.
Actually, their population is increasing. Based on some estimates, by 4200 bears since 2001.
6) Human generated CO2 has caused an increase in global temperatures.
Temperatures have stayed constant over the last 17 years.
7) Sea Level is increasing rapidly.
Over the past 150 years, there has been no drastic, alarming, or abnormal increase in sea level. One site, SkepticalScience, shows a graph from 1880 to now. Sea Levels are about the same now as they were then. It appears, from the graph, that it is cyclical.
The following is from an expert in the field:
The only conclusion, therefore, is Climate Change is a natural process and does not appear to be abnormally affected by people.
Segment Two: Politics:
The Politics of Climate Change, like anything in politics, is all about money.
First I would like to mention a warning signs of a "political agenda", like "science by consensus". One of the first things we heard from the IPCC and other AGW activists is how "scientists are in consensus" and "all the evidence suggests". Any science minded person knows this isn't true in ANY scientific field. For every scientist FOR something, there is one AGAINST it, and another one who has his own theory.
For instance, we have "the big bangers" and the "black holers" when it comes to the origin of our universe... there are those in the scientific community who question gravity... and in climate science, there are all kinds of voices, some for and yes, some against.
SCIENCE is not something done by CONSENSUS, but by application of the Scientific Theory.
Another warning sign is when any bit of science becomes a political talking point. Politicians are notorious for conflating issues; in the '70s is was "Global Cooling" and today "Global Warming". Neither of which are true; its all just Climate Change.
Further evidence of a "political agenda" when it comes to Science is developing and passing legislation to try to alter nature. Just because you pass a law that forbids the sun from rising, doesn't mean the sun won't rise.
Second, I must point out "bad science", to go along with the "political agenda":
(8 other sources in comments)
Third, after seeing the political agenda, we must ask "who is making money on this?"
When Al Gore came up with the idea of "trading carbon credits", financial experts had their hair set on fire. They recognized the beginnings of a ponzi scheme.
Carbon trading is a Billion (if not Trillion) dollar scheme. Private individuals and Governments stand to make a fortune.
Luckily, some are realizing the fraud:
Segment Three: Alternative Theories:
Another warning sign is the complete lack of alternate theories to either compliment or detract from the supposed consensus, especially from those sources that HAVE both points of view, like NASA. Below are several links discussing another plausible cause of "Climate Change"; Solar activity:
(12 other sources in comments)
As you can see, it isn't something to ignore, and it calls into question the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.
I have also included some more information from a variety of sources that talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem:
We should also understand that "weather" and "climate" are different things. Weather, for instance, can be influenced by people:
You asked for some scientists that don't support AGW, well, here is a partial list of 31,000:
NONE of this is to say that I don't believe we should be responsible stewards of our Earthly home. I believe in Recycling, conservation, etc.
I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon.
NOTE: due to the 10,000 character limit, I have placed many of my links to sources in the comments section.
Misrepresentation of greenhouse concerns
Con managed to find recent examples of politicians blaming hurricanes and forest fires on climate change, and has cited how humans are not in danger of asphyxiation, but he has neglected the long-established mainstream concerns of the scientific community. They now deserve review.
Atmospheric CO2: CO2 does not deflect visible light, which is what originally makes it to the earth's surface. Upon reaching the earth's surface, visible light is partially absorbed by the earth or water, and partially reflected. The reflection process lowers its energy level, turning it into infrared light. CO2 deflects infrared light. So CO2's reflective properties for the earth are one-directional. Visible light pass downward unperturbed, but upward infrared is deflected downwards / sideways. This effectually increases the amount of light striking the surface of the planet, which at current greenhouse levels protects life from the freezing cold of space, and at future levels threatens to roast life - not to death, but to ecological disequilibrium.
Atmospheric Ozone: Unlike most greenhouse gases, ozone deflects ultraviolet light, which is dangerously energetic. While most greenhouse gases keep life on earth warm and cozy, ozone prevents UV rays from directly burning life forms. Climate change from emission of halocarbons and CFCs are thankfully already regulated because of their ability to destroy ozone, but they are one more example of the potential for anthropogenic climate change.
Oceanic: The oceans currently absorb atmospheric CO2 and are undergoing a resulting drop in pH. They are also currently absorbing most of the extra heat from the sun, and therefore are experiencing a rise in temperature. Once they heat to a certain point, the oceans are expected to start releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere, which may include massive reserves that have been down there for millions of years. Con points to the seasonal increase in ice, ignoring the seasonal decrease in ice (see logical fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter), and to a non-scientific news article that predicted we would not have ice at this time (see logical fallacy: Fallacy).
Anecdotal  vs. Statistical Evidence and Misinterpretation of Mistakes : If a physicist miscalculates the speed of the moon, it doesn't disprove the theory of gravitation. If we argued about whether gravity existed, it would be perfectly fair for Con to cite research projects that conclude that Newton's calculus systematically fails at predicting the paths of celestial bodies, but if Con cannot find such research conclusions, substituting with examples where "meteor alarmists" fail to predict the exact path of a meteoroid for five years brings nothing to the discussion. There are two logical reasons for this: Con would be relying on 1) 'anecdotal' evidence that ignores a larger picture, and 2) an absolutist interpretation in which a single mistake disproves an entire theory. This is the precise mechanism Con used in the first round of this debate. He provides nine links as "mistakes" of climate change theorists, but they scarcely dented the scientific data showing the existence of anthropogenic climate change. He additionally provides one link labeled "bad science," one labeled "manipulations" and two links labeled "lies," which are additionally statistically irrelevant and inevitable. Again, following this logic, would Con conclude that chemotherapy is inneffective because it occasionally doesn't work? No, he would know better, because even though the burden of proof relies on the treatment, instances where it demonstrates validity are more relevant than instances where it does not. What changes so much about people's thought process when contemplating climate change? Con's third properly cited source debunks an incorrect 5-year prediction by BBC, and its author, David Rose, writes as if this debunks every climate change theory on earth. Con's sixth properly cited source responds to a New York Times article, because actual climate science holds that increases in global heat can go undetected to atmospheric readings for decades at a time, partially because the oceans absorb heat as well.
Strawman Fallacy : Of the seven sources Con cites properly, the first responds to the hurricane correlation but admits to global warming. The second responds to the wildfire correlation but says nothing of global warming. Climate science never relied on hurricanes or wildfires as evidence.
Cherrypicking and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy : Con's third properly cited source neglects the past century, the past decade, and mentions only that the arctic still gets colder at the proper time of year (and is written by a biased reporter whose profile boasts of shooting down "climate alarmists"). The fourth referred only to antarctic sea ice of 2013 and admitted to an average warming of temperatures, stating “If the warming continues, at some point the trend will reverse,” and even cites a long-established global warming theory that the average increase in temperatures creates hotter and colder extremes (Antarctic temperatures count as extremes). The fifth ignores global polar bear numbers and focuses on the "Polar Bear Capitol of the World," and responds only to "Polar Bear worries," distorting the concerns of mainstream climate scientists who already believe global warming will freeze the colder parts of the globe for the next several decades. The sixth responds to a New York Times article that I can only assume is fallacious - I didn't check, because the New York Times is not a scientific journal, nor is Forbes. Con's seventh properly cited source refers to sea level, which depends on melting ice, which I've already mentioned was never scheduled to happen on mass scales for several more decades, because climate change starts by making hot areas hotter and cold areas colder.
Appeal to Nature : Polio, the Flu, infant mortality, the bubonic plague, and a host of other issues are all perfectly natural, but for some reason most of society felt they are worth our attention. While I daresay Con would agree, his basic logical processing once again changes when the topic becomes climate change. "For the purpose of this discussion, "Climate Change" is defined as the NATURAL PROCESS by which the Earth warms and cools" and "I don't believe, however, that we should be spending Trillions or even Billions to try to stop "Climate Change", when it appears to be a NORMAL and NATURAL phenomenon" are fallacious appeals to nature by Con.
Accusations of Monetary Incentive: Con has stated that climate research is all about grant money, but hasn't defined any government objective to alarm people about climate change. In fact, the greatest political rivals of climate environmentalism are oil and coal. The government's oil lobby is huge, and many Congressmen have financial investments in oil and deny the existence of climate change. American voters complain to the U.S. government when gas prices go up, and the U.S. government has subsidized oil markets for decades. Coal produces the cheapest electricity prices available, and is commonly painted politically as an employment blessing to coal miners. Also, Con's sixth source responds to "New York Times" hysteria, not scientific hysteria, suggesting a rivalry between corporate news agencies.
Ambiguity of Semantics : "it has been common practice amongst the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" advocates to use the term "Climate Change" or simply "Global Warming" to confuse the issue of Climate Change." What?
Abuse of sources:
Misrepresentation of scientific sources provided: I quote from one of Con's Solar Radiation links: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction." Con no doubt referenced and pasted his Solar Radiation links thinking they would show that Global Warming occurs because of the sun, when in fact they show the opposite.
Selection of non-scientific sources: While he cites scientific sources to discuss Solar Radiation in the comments section, and while he pastes several links from nature.com (claiming they "talk about CO2 and how it isn't really a problem"), the sources he effectively summarizes and properly cites are non-scientific.
Lack of citation for relevant sources and overcitation for irrelevant sources: "The AVERAGE temperature for the Earth appears to be about 18c." - It's possible Con means negative 18c, which is what the average temperature of the earth would hypothetically be if the greenhouse effect didn't work. Our existence is a demonstration of its relevance. I would visit his provided source to find out what he really means, but none was provided. Con pasted so many URL's that he avoided reading, summarizing or discussing that he didn't have room to provide actual sources for the facts he cited. He provided so many sources that support my end of this argument that by taking the time to explain them, I scarcely have space to add any more. Since it is my belief that debates have character limits to help force debaters to know what they are talking about, I refuse to follow his example and post a chaotic pool of sources in the comments section.
Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any.
Yes, there are those who believe that Science is all about hype, and they have done things like, scaring people about the MMR Immunisation (http://www.badscience.net...). Why do they do this? Simply, it makes them money.
In my opinion, this is exactly the same thing happening in Climate Science these days. The movement supporting AGW is pulling in Billions, if not Trillions of dollars: for research (employment), for mitigation (legislation, taxes), and for advocacy groups (you know, to get the word out).
Supporters of AGW don't really have much to stand on, yet, they continue on with the forecast of "doom and gloom" and the "end of the world". Looking at our short history in the United States, we have seen this before, with Religions: "10 Times The World Was Supposed To End And Didn't", http://www.businessinsider.com...
Secondly, I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy. Essentially, by ignoring every argument put to him, claiming the great many of them are "logical fallacies" of one flavor or other, Mr. Merrill has employed logical fallacies of his own; a subtle form of ad-hominem, and "Staying on Message" (he is hoping that repeating the AGW mantra will be convincing, which may be why he does not include any further information with his assertions). His defense also smacks of the "Blind Loyalty" fallacy.
Regardless, I will stick to the facts, and if I have space, I will deal with his accusations, or as many as I can within the limits placed upon us in this forum.
True, this is a concern of AGW advocates. The problem is, it isn't a real problem. Any view that takes into account only the last 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 years is a "short sighted view", and ignores much of the evidence that tells us about the "normal" or "optimal" state of this planet.
To assume that we can somehow stave off a natural warming cycle is simple arrogance.
Further problems with Mr. Merrill's argument can be shown in what happens when you apply higher CO2 concentrations to plant life:
Remember the economist, Lord Stern, whose 2006 report provoked the then Environment Secretary, David Miliband, to say "the science is settled"? Well, it isn't.
We still have scientists arguing whether the CO2 increases happen BEFORE the warming, or AFTER.
That is a pretty significant question, one that seems to be ignored by the IPCC and other AGW activists.
We always hear the CO2 concentrations are causing the Earth to heat up, but if the HEAT really happens BEFORE the increase in temps, it kind of deflates that assumption.
Just because we think, as our ancestors of old, that WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (or the most important life-forms on the planet), doesn't make it so, and reality must be considered at some point. There are events out there that could cause the extinction of the Human Race: meteor, super volcano, nuclear war...
Only ONE of those do we actually have control over. (Well, we might be able to "shoot down" a meteor ... maybe... )
Realistically, we must look at EVERYTHING that the Earth offers us. ALL temperature extremes, ALL variables. We know man has survived some of those extremes for the last 200,000 years... without benefit of the "industrialization" and "pollution" (CO2) that is supposedly causing the same thing to happen today as has been happening our whole history.
(the dust bowl, 100 year floods, storms, droughts, etc...) Looking back, we don't see "man made CO2" at the same levels they are today in the 1600s, or the 1700s... so what caused these phenomena? What caused the Little Ice Age? Or the Medieval Warm Period?
Interestingly, the name of the warm period about 6,000 years ago was called the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Any guess why they call it "optimum"?
This leads me to ask:
1) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the temperature of this planet.
2) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing the CO2 concentration of our Atmosphere.
3) AWG has not defined what is NORMAL or OPTIMAL when discussing Sea Level.
What is "normal", what is "optimal"?
At what temperature is this earth, its ecosystems, and climate at their "best"?
If we don't have an answer, there is no way to know what "abnormal" is. There is NO BASELINE from which we can judge.
Interestingly, every "doom and gloom" scenario brought about by AWG Climate Alarmists concerning CO2 has failed under scrutiny.
The CO2 levels are INCREASING, yes, and the Temperatures have flat-lined.
Increasing CO2 levels, and increasing Biomass in both the Oceans and on Land.
Increasing CO2 levels, yet the Ozone Layer is recovering.
This is one of those "good arguments". It shows how science actually SHOULD work; as a solution, not a problem. Scientists identified the problems with the depletion of OZONE. They identified and defined a cause. We came to know and understand what was depleting the Ozone Layer. And, via the Montreal Protocol, Scientists worked to outline a way to fix it.
Other areas, like CO2 levels in our atmosphere, aren't so well understood. Yet, today's scientists want to impose all kinds of restrictions, etc, in the same way as they did with Ozone, via the Kyoto Protocol, but without having a full understand of the CAUSE of the supposed warming we are experiencing.
The Establishment has a mantra, "its all man-made", and they repeat it, often. Yet, there is very little evidence to support that position, unless you ignore HISTORY. In which case, you engage in a HUGE logical fallacy; Questionable Cause.
Mr. Merrill tries to call my pointing at the arctic and antarctic ice increase as a "logical fallacy". The problem? We have been told for years by AWG alarmists that the arctic ice is melting and will soon be gone. We have also been told that the arctic is disappearing, and with it, the Polar Bear. Anyone can pull the youtube videos, news reports, etc, that show how the Climate Alarmists have been using the logical fallacy, Appeal to Fear, to try to get us to "fall in line" and support the Establishment in their agenda driven science.
What I have done by pointing out the growth in the ice sheets, is show that there is nothing new. Things are NORMAL. In the latest report, http://nsidc.org... , we see the Ice Sheet is currently within the standard deviation. It is NORMAL.
AWG alarmists tried to use the Polar Bear by using the fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, along with the Appeal to Fear. Polar Bears are, after all, so very "cute".
There are problems with the politicizing of Global Warming... we can see it here:
Something else to consider, with the past history of our planet, and the warm periods, including the aforementioned Holocene Optimum, how on earth did Polar Bears survive?
Why aren't they extinct? If our simple warming, today, is enough for AWG alarmists to foretell their demise, why did they not die out when it was 4c warmer than it is today? They seem to have survived at least one but maybe 2 or more of these warm periods where arctic ice was all but gone.
This, again, shows a logical fallacy of Questionable Cause used by AWG alarmists. Real scientists have found the problem affecting the Polar Bear, (it wasn't climate change), it was MAN. They came up with laws and accords to help protect the Bears, and now their numbers are increasing (overall).
Further, looking into the "storage of heat" in our oceans, the scientists are, again, baffled by the surprising lack of heat they seem to be storing.
CO2 concentrations do rise in the Oceans, and so does the Biomass:
Another issue is the lack of proof for the deep ocean heat retention, and the lack of historic information.
To make any speciulations with so little information is disingenuous at best.
And all "conclusions" made, so far, are "inconclusive".
Alas, no space to deal with Mr. Morrell's fallacious avoidance tactics using fallacies.
To address them as efficiently as possible, I am listing Con's round 2 sources in my own list of round 2 references: sources 32-34 are mine, and sources 35-57 are Con's.
Logical Fallacy: Fallacy 
"You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." 
"Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day." 
To express Con's use of this Fallacy, I expressed the difference between making an error in the trajectory of Celestial bodies and concluding that Newton's calculus does not work. Con's response?
"I believe this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" - Con.
Just one question - did Con honestly click on my 27th source?
Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or "ignoring every argument." Ad Hominem ignores the content stated by an individual to attack their character. Logical Fallacies are based solely on the content stated by the individual.
Misrepresentation and The strawman fallacy 
"By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate."
I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes. Con's response: "Yes, there has been a very large misrepresentation of the concerns. In essence, there aren't any." Is it fair to say this constitutes the misrepresentation of the concerns I represent in this debate? Could we perhaps call this a "dropped point"?
Please observe the image from , "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart. This shows stark contrast from Con's statement that scientists have not defined what is "normal" or "optimal" when discussing the CO2 concentrations of the atmosphere. These concentrations correllate with the following temperature anomaly readings of the last 130 years :
The image from  "NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus" shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years, versus the plateau in 'temperature' that was previously discussed. Temperature anomaly is the deviation from expected temperature, and as Con's Solar Radiation sources so helpfully pointed out, we would expect the slight cooling of the sun for the past decades to be associated with a decrease in temperature.
The scientific organizations listed in image 3 regularly produce definitions of what is "normal" or "optimal" temperature. Actually, negative 18 degrees Celsius is what the temperature would be without the greenhouse effect , so obviously we exist in part because of greenhouse gases. While celebrating their existence as a factor of ours, we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature.
Clearly, the latest spike in CO2 readings and temperature anomalies are more than "natural," and I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade.
35. (con) http://www.badscience.net...
This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures.
36. (con) http://www.businessinsider.com...
This is about religious predictions being wrong, and Con is hoping that it disproves scientific theories on climate change.
37. (con) http://t.co...
This concludes that increasing CO2 has disproportional and "complex effects on the growth and composition of natural plant communities," and con is hoping it will show that CO2 emissions are good for the environment. In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic.
38. (con) http://t.co...
This explains the counterbalance of the greenhouse effect by the fertilization effect, and con hopes to show that it disproves the greenhouse effect. Actually, despite the increased foliage that responds to the greenhouse effect, if anything, this article proves the greenhouse effect.
39. (con) http://t.co...
This also shows that foreresty increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is also an empirical measurement of the greenhouse effect.
40. (con) http://t.co...
We are truly repeating ourselves, as this also shows that forestry increases in response to the greenhouse effect, which is an empirical measurement of greenhouse gases.
41. (con) http://t.co...
"Contrary to previous opinion, the rise in temperature and the rise in the atmospheric CO2 follow each other closely in terms of time." Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels.
42. (con) http://t.co...
This shows that CO2 is not the "primary" driver of temperature, but as shown in images 2 and 3, climate theory relies on "temperature anomaly," which compares temperature predictions to actual temperatures to control for multiple variables.
43. (con) http://t.co...
This is part of this research article: http://t.co... , which concludes that "antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations." Con's claims is that we're still uncertain whether temperature affects CO2 levels or whether it is the other way around.
44. (con) http://t.co...
This shows that temperatures affect CO2, not the other way around, and absolutely, but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog. Our discussion of financial incentive and social popularity is key here, because rather than being based on peer-review, this is based off view-count and quite possibly anonymous funding. Note her motto, "hate to see a good civilization going to waste," playing on the age-old rivalry between environmental and business movements.
45. (con) http://t.co...
This shows that global temperatures underwent variation before the industrial age too. Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures.
46. (con) http://en.wikipedia.org...
This shows that an extreme temperature jump occured 6,000 years ago. Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove.
47. (con) http://t.co...
This suggests that the ozone layer on the road to recovery, which Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone.
48. (con) http://t.co...
Con probably meant to demonstrate that doubling the CO2 can only change temperature by 1 degree F, because that's indeed listed in this source, but it's listed as a myth.
49. (con) http://nsidc.org...
Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal, but this article states, "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2013 was 5.35 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles). This was 1.17 million square kilometers (452,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent."
50. (con) http://t.co...
Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast. I'm talking about scientific theory, not Al-Gore's presidential platform.
51. (con) http://t.co...
See explanation for .
52. (con) http://t.co...
"If you can't explain the pause, you can't explain the cause." It's pithy, and it's non-scientifically simple. It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see .
53. (con) http://www.sciencedaily.com...
54. (con) http://www.nature.com...
55. (con) http://oceanworld.tamu.edu...
56. (con) http://t.co...
This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade.
57. (con) http://t.co...
This shows that energy in oceans has been increasing overtime.
I have assumed no such thing. But Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting.
I would like to point out 2 things wrong with Climate Alarmists' arguments:
1) There are a very large number of Climate and Climate related scientists that do not believe in, or are skeptical of Climate Alarmists assertions.
One flaw in this particular branch of science is how the "community" is dealing with "discenters". Most of those who "deny" AGW are treated with Ridicule and Scorn, have their jobs threatened, and have simply opted to leave because of the treatment they receive.
2) To understand abnormal, we must first have the baseline for which the discussion can be built. In the Climate Alarmist v. Climate Denier argument, there are 3 critical pieces of information that have not been fully addressed:
What is "Normal" or "Optimal" when it comes to Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate.
How can we know what is "out of the ordinary" if what is "normal" is never exposed?
Do we simply assume that the climate of the past 50, 100, 1000, years is "normal" and any deviation from that "normalcy" is "abnormal"?
At what point do we say we have a good idea of what "normal" is? And what is "normal"? How about the period in our recent history where the Earth hit a point called "the Holocene Climate Optimum". It was between 4c and 6c warmer than our current temperatures today. Is this "normal"? Is it "optimal"?
Or the Little Ice Age? Is that "normal" or "optimal"?
Please define both NORMAL and OPTIMAL ...
Mr. Merrill continues:
"Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or 'ignoring every argument.'"
When the BULK of an argument concentrates on perceived fallacies, without benefit of using verifiable sources to argue the points made, it is.
For instance, Mr. Merrill perceived an "appeal to nature" fallacy but ignore that a great many things ARE natural. Like the fluctuations of climate, for which we are having this discussion. How is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy?
Mr. Merrill does the same here, in this reply. He has stopped arguing the points of contention to spend his time dealing with perceived fallacies, as explained below.
"I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes."
Ignored? Misrepresented? To your first paragraph (Atmospheric CO2), I responded with 6 of my own. I discuss everything from the positive effects of increased CO2 and Biomassing to the evidence that shows CO2 increases FOLLOW, not PRECEDE the Temperature Increases. I also discuss the lack of definition of "OPTIMAL" and question why events such as "warming", "wetting", "cooling" and "drying" are witnessed before the "industrial age" before MAN can be blamed for the anomalies.
Instead of dealing with these issues, Mr. Merrill wants to "drop" this subject, "Could we perhaps call this a 'dropped point'?"
Sorry, Mr. Merrill, I will not let you ignore the scientific facts that the climate is in flux, has been for millions (billions) of years, and will continue to be.
Mr. Merrill continues:
"Please observe the image from , "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart."
The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. 650,000 years is only approximately .0143% of the geologic timescale available.
Mr. Merrill then misrepresents the facts in his statement, "The image from  'NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus' shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years".
The chart shows a change in temperature over the past 132 years. The last 17 years are shown in the far right side of that graph, which does, clearly, show a slowing in temperatures.
Mr. Merrill continues:
"... greenhouse gases."
Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -- I have not taken issue with "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", I have taken issue with what the Climate Alarmists are calling "unprecedented global warming due to man's activity".
"we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature."
Which may be true AND ignores the proofs given in my previous argument that Temperature has been shown to PRECEDE increases in CO2. The fact that CO2 increases AFTER the Temperature increases is interesting and should merit further study. The science is most definitely not settled.
Further, Mr. Merrill, here and in  below, demonstrates an inability to draw parallels, "I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade."
Finally, we note, Mr. Merrill, that you fail to deal with the other portions of my response to your arguments; the second paragraph, "Atmospheric Ozone", and the third paragraph, "Oceanic".
Instead, he continues his fallacious denial, which I will now deal with:
35. "This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures."
Alarmism does not good science make.
36. See 
37. "In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic."
Mr. Merrill is ignoring the science which shows that higher concentrations of CO2 are not "bad" but "good" for the Biosphere. This goes to the NATURAL nature of Climate Change and the Earth's response to those changes. Ignoring the science to make a point is, well, a fallacy.
38, 39, 40. See 
41. "Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels."
Correct. Because it is hard to claim, as Climate Alarmists do, "man made CO2 is causing warming" if in fact the warming comes BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Thank you for conceding that point.
42, 43, 44. Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in .
"but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog." Logical Fallacy. If the information presented is correct, credentials or other factors are irrelevant.
45. "Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures." Assumption. If changes have happened, are happening and will happen, there is little we can do to change or alter those changes. Especially in the LONG TERM, as is shown, previously, by taking ALL the information, not less than 1% of the information available.
46. "Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I have said exactly what I hope to prove. The science is there to back it up. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument, dealing with it might.
47. "Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone."
Your attempt here is to ignore your own argument. In Round 2 you posted un-cited information that Ozone is one of the Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming. The science says this may be correct, and the science says the Ozone is on the mend, which removes this factor from the argument.
48. "but it's listed as a myth. "
The only myth here is that CO2 causes warming, Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in .
49. "Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal"
Maybe Mr. Merrill can explain what "standard deviation" means?
50. "Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast."
Mr. Merrill is using yet another Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. Mr. Merrill is ignoring the fact that Climate Alarmists have been using things like "melting ice caps" and "disappearing polar bears" for years to make their point (also a Logical Fallacy, as pointed out, "Appeal to Emotion"). Yet, this is proven incorrect, polar bear populations are well on the increase. I will take Mr. Merrill's response here to mean he agrees with this point, and move on.
51. See 
52. "It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see ."
Here Mr. Merrill ignores the actual evidence on the page cited. He uses a Logical Fallacy: Poisoned Well, because its a blog. On that page we find a reference to peer-reviewed science that states, "This suggests that this warming episode is mainly due to internal dynamics of the ocean rather than external radiative forcing.", http://goo.gl...
Using Logical Fallacies in this way only hurts Mr. Merrill's arguments, not helps them.
53, 54, 55. See 
56. "This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade."
Mr. Merrill either didn't read the whole article, or is hoping it will "go away" as there are charts that show data from the 1950s. That is far more than 8 years. The data of the last 8 years simply shows the trend, as with the last 15-18 years of Global Temperatures, to have slowed its warming trend.
This is valid information, because as above, Mr. Merrill has denied that any such thing happened, when it has been shown that it has happened. See the posted charts above.
57. Mr. Merrill is again misrepresenting the facts of the article presented. The fact is, as the opening statement suggests, "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." -- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Far from being alarmists, scientists ground themselves in uncertainty because “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wise people so full of doubts” (Bertrand Russell). Politics and business reward leadership qualities, drawing fools and fanatics, while science and academia draw thinkers who question themselves. “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality” (Russell). The IPCC rightly holds that "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate” . But although politics by nature is unscientific, the scientific community takes firm stances on issues that relate solely to science. “When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others” (Russell).
And on that note, the IPCC continues its statement, “However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities" 
Con appears confused: “Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting,” so it seems I must rephrase with greater specificity:
Con presumed that because he could provide nine links that highlight second-decimal mistakes in climate prediction (round 1), climate science itself is a mistake, not unlike presuming that because one could find nine physicists who made mathematical mistakes, astronomy itself is a mistake. This I referenced as "the fallacy fallacy," to which Con responded with incredulity , "this is the first time that I have ever seen someone employ the "logical fallacy" card in a way as to be, in itself, a logical fallacy" (round 2). . . though I am sure Con would love to believe I admitted to making a poor argument myself!
To Con’s question on the Appeal to Nature fallacy, how is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Well, take disease - it's natural, that's a scientific fact. "Appealing to" that fact doesn't just mean pointing out that it's natural, it means concluding that nothing can or should be done about it. "Because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal" . This is Con’s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity.
I did misrepresent that temperature anomalies chart, it showed 132 years. My apologies. It showed highly fluctuating anomalies in the last 17 years.
If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature.
Con appreciates that my summary of source 41 conceded his point. I wrote it, I just re-read it, and I don’t know what he’s talking about. “A causes B” and “B causes A” - it’s a simple positive feedback loop.
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society" AAAS 
This is not to be confused with political tactics like naming hurricanes after climate deniers. Science is defined by method which involves peer-review, and is not to be confused with the claims of political bloggers, activists or pundits.
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." - ACS 
Nothing about the end of the world, just that it’s a growing threat to society - probably one of many.
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." AMS 
The AMS view is important here, because of Con’s source that headlines, “Meteorologists are Global Warming Skeptics.” It’s a strange headline for an article whose actual content states that “According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.” Not skeptics, just not alarmists either. It’s ironic that Con is the only debate participant here who believes scientists are alarmists on this issue.
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." APS 
No threats or bargains here, nothing about whether it’s America’s fault or China’s fault, or whether this means we have to stop driving cars. This is about science, and science with a political target or without proper peer review is not science.
It’s easy to find geologists who are skeptical of global warming - they’re paid to find oil, not think about its effect on the air. They don’t perform peer-reviewed research. But the Geological Society of America, speaking for the science of geology over the business of it, concurs that Global Warming is anthropogenic.
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouseR08;gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." GSA 
And the American Geophysical Union agrees,
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." - AGU 
Sometimes the medical community even chips in:
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." - AMA 
Mr. Merrill's reply here is also a Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. He is no longer dealing with facts but opinion: ignoring the heart of the discussion; what do the FACTS, or the DATA say? "What do we KNOW", not "who agrees with whom".
AR5 Final Draft, Chapter 9, page 5/205:
"The majority of Earth System models now include an interactive representation of aerosols... uncertainties in sulphur-cycle processes and natural sources and sinks remain and so, for example, the simulated aerosol optical depth over oceans ranges from 0.08 to 0.22 with roughly equal numbers of models over- and underestimating the satellite-estimated value of 0.12."
From page 27:
"By contrast, there is limited evidence that the hiatus in GMST trend has been accompanied by a slower rate of increase in ocean heat content over the depth range 0"700 m, when comparing the period 2003"2010 against 1971"2010. There is low agreement on this slowdown, since three of five analyses show a slowdown in the rate of increase while the other two show the increase continuing unabated (Section 3.2.3, Figure 3.2)."
Also, from Chapter 9:
"During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a), whereas during the 15-year period ending in 1998, it lies above 93 out of 114 modelled trends ((Box 9.2 Figure 1b; HadCRUT4 ensemble-mean trend 0.26"C per decade, CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend 0.16"C per decade)."
Where are these "uncertainties" in the final report?
There is ONE:
SPM-10: "There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years."
Then there is Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, "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."
Former and current IPCC experts who have spoken out against the IPCC"s abuse of science include such prominent scientists as:
Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT climate physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;
Dr. John Christy, a climatologist of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA;
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, past director and state geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas;
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, former Virginia State climatologist, a UN IPCC reviewer, and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences;
Dr. Vincent Gray, New Zealand chemist and climate researcher;
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, geologist/geochemist, head of the Geological Museum in Norway;
Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager and project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans.
Not to mention, it appears a great many of scientists are "skeptical":
Secondly, a good number of scientists violate Mr. Merrill's stated ideal, "Far from being alarmists"... Many scientists are involved in AGW Alarmist Activism:
Of the 13 senior scientists who put together USGCRP"s January 2013 draft report, seven have ties to activist groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund.
Chair Jerry Melillo is a contributing author for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Vice Chair Gary Yohe is part of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Climate Witness Program.
Richard Moss is a former vice president for WWF.
James Buizer is on the Board of Directors of the environmental activist group Second Nature.
Susanne Moser is a former staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Andrew Rosenberg is a director for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Donald Weubbles is an author for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Further, 8 of these 13 USGCRP senior scientists participate in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Con presumed that because he could provide nine links..."
I'll stop you there. Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I provided several links that showed mistakes that have been made as ONE of several evidences that Climate Alarmism is wrong.
"This is Con"s argument that because climate fluctuations occur naturally, they cannot result from human activity."
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. My position is, and has been, about climate alarmism. I have provided a great many links and sources that show the NATURAL variations in climate, the NATURAL responses of the earth to increased CO2 and the LACK of evidence for AGW affecting earth's climate and or being "out of the ordinary". There is no crisis.
"If Con agrees with the Greenhouse Theory as he so surely claims, he cannot deny that significant increases in CO2 stand to boost global temperature."
I don't have to deny it. What you have engaged in is known as the Common Cause Fallacy or False Cause:
This one has the graphs:
Then Mr. Merrill provides several "proofs" by listing statements from some of the organizations that have bought in to the AGW Alarmism.
Lets look at the other side and what they say:
A few members of organizations like the AMS have left over the AMS's stand on AGW:
A poll taken on Meteorologists show them to be skeptics:
And if you don't "toe the line", you have your credentials threatened:
"billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." (2006) -- James Lovelock, British inventor, NASA scientist, author, and originator of the Gaia Hypothesis, He now says his predictions were "alarmist," and he criticizes his former comrades for having turned environmentalism into a "green religion."
"For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory... Recent experience with the UN"s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too." -- Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, author, "Die Kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun)", co-authored with noted geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian L"ning.
"Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!" " NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace
"Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself " Climate is beyond our power to control"Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can"t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone"s permission or explaining itself." " Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
"Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences"AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks." " Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Lu"s Lino, -- "The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency." 2009.
"[The science] community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what "science" has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed." " Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled "The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and he published a paper in August 2009 titled "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field."
"[The global warming establishment] has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC." " Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University
"There is a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink" They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging... They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them... The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics"the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy." -- Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech
"In attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about." -- Richard Lindzen, Former UN IPCC Lead Author
I thank my opposition for accepting this incredibly difficult topic, the debate now belongs to the voters and I will provide no additional sources.
Guide to Voting:
I will not advise voters on conduct, spelling or grammar.
Original argument: this debate challenge was designed to discuss whether the scientific community believes in global warming. I offered a 20-to-1 advantage to my opposition, and by that standard, as my source summary states below, I tally 182 scientists that acknowledge global warming and 9 scientific organizations that state that it is anthropogenic, not counting the roughly 2 dozen authors of the dozen sources listed by Con that acknowledge or prove climate change, nor the unnamed 97% that NASA claims agree that climate change is anthropogenic . Con's tally ranks at somewhere between 7 and generously 2 dozen (depending who counts), or the unnamed 32,000 (97%), if voters choose to trust minnesotansforglobalwarming.com. Voters must choose whether to calculate the winner of this criteria by scientist or scientific organization, and what soundness of sources to accept from each side.
Peripheral arguments: Con's round 1 shifted this debate to the far more complicated questions of whether global warming is anthropogenic and whether climate scientists are "alarmists." This I welcomed, and if voters choose to base their decisons on these arguments, I look forward to their commentary.
Summary of Sources by Pro:
Of my 66 sources, 35-57 (a count of 23) listed Con's round 2 sources to simplify the references. Of the 43 that were originally mine, sources 1-3 and 5-25 referenced 27 scientific studies authored by 182 researchers who believe climate change to be real, many of which acknowledge the human role in climate change, and none of which exclude it. Sources 4, 58-59 and 61-66 referenced scientific organizations who publicly acknowledge anthropogenic climate change. Sources 26-31 and 60 referenced logical fallacies that I believed Con employed to make his arguments more persuasive.
Summary of Sources by Con:
Of his 72 links pasted throughout these five rounds, I count 28 scientifically accredited sources. Of those 28, I count 7 that deny anthropogenic climate change, and 12 that acknowledge or conclude its existence. This does not include the "Solar Radiation" sources he provides in the comments section, most of which affirm climate change to be real. The specifics of my counts are provided in the chart below, listed in the order in which they were pasted.
Con's Round 1 Sources:
Con's Round 2 Sources:
Con's Round 3 Sources:
Con's Round 4 Sources:
I apologize for the awkwardness of this pasted chart, but I have enjoyed this debate, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it!
This debate is entitled:
"Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community"
To that end, Mr. Merrill offered a simple challenge, but no definitions or ground rules for the debate. Because of that failure I offered definitions to clear up the "Anthropogenic Global Warming v. Global Warming" debate, and offered some of the arguments of AGW Alarmist and several Sources that argue against those claims.
The rest of Mr. Merrill's writings largely ignore the argument, taking us from 20 points of contention to only 2. I then thoroughly deal with those 2 points of contention in Round 2, and reintroduce one previous point from Round 1, because Mr. Merrill did not address it. In Round 3, Mr. Merrill then, admittedly, misrepresents some data while dealing, again, with only 2 points of contention. Seeing Mr. Merrill's unwillingness to deal with the great many issues affronting AGW Alarmists, I provide several links that deal with his original claims; there being a lack of support for AGW Denial, and I reiterate one specific point of contention, and then deal with 22 of his specific claims. Mr. Merrill then changes tactic and provides some excuses as an attempt to deal with the Politicization of Climate Science. Mr. Merrill also provides 8 sourced quotes from AGW Alarmists/Activists. I replied with 9 sourced quotes of AGW Deniers and I point out a group of 13 ACTIVIST Scientists, 8 of whom worked on the report for the IPCC, and I gave a list of 10 Scientists who have left various groups (including the IPCC) over AGW "Science". Mr. Merrill does not deal with any of what was presented in Round 4, but instead, in Round 5, opts to try to convince the audience; using logical fallacies and confusing the definitions of Anthropogenic Global Warming and Global Warming.
I believe I have show there is great support for Climate Denial in the scientific community; that the AWG Alarmist community is corrupted by politics and activism.
Mr. Merrill wanted a 20:1 ratio of scientists; AGW Supporters v. Deniers. Someone would have to verify the actual count and remove the duplicates from all sources, as they undoubtedly contained duplicate researchers, but lets just make this easy:
Mr. Merrill started out with 25 AWG supporting sources with a total of about 200 Authors. This is an average of 8 AWG Supporting Scientists per source.
In a sample of 21 of my links (from Round 2), I found 29 peer reviewed papers including about 150 authors, for an average of about 7 authors per paper.
This nets nearly a 1:1 (8:7) ratio of scientists who do and do not support AGW.
Based on that alone I met and beat Mr. Merrill's challenge. This only leaves Mr. Merrill to deal with the 20 points of contention, of which he only tries to deal with 5.
I believe I understand why Mr. Merrill refuses to deal with all the points of contention, or any of the support for natural and normal Global Warming:
In the 4th round, I provide an additional link to this peer reviewed study, http://oss.sagepub.com... , which shows that a great many scientists are skeptical of AGW (I did not use this in my assessment of the 21 links in Round 2). I already pointed out how Mr. Merrill failed to deal with ANY points made in the 4th round.
Therefore, the only conclusion I can make is; the support just isn't there in the quantity (and/or quality) Mr. Merrill would like or need to prove his assertions. In other words, his lack of dealing with the points of contention is proof his original assertion is wrong.
Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, I was not arguing against Global Warming, as he asserts (Logical Fallacy: Straw Man). As I presented, Global Warming is a natural and normal process that we experience coming out of the last Ice Age (we are in an Intraglacial period, which Mr. Merrill also ignores).
I have argued against Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Science Alarmism and Activism. I have provided an abundant number of sources against it, including several links to the data itself. And a great many scientists who are "AGW Deniers" simply by doing research that denies the Establishment's supposed "consensus".
Review of the Points of Contention:
Mr. Merrill claims:
There is little support in the scientific community for AGW Denial: Claim proven false.
CO2 causes Atmosphere warming: Claim proven false; Warming precedes CO2.
Ozone: Ozone is repairing, not causing AGW.
CO2 is warming the Oceans: Claim is Unclear, but the evidence, as provided, isn't showing Oceanic Warming.
There is no Alarmism or Activism in the Climate Science Community: Claim proven false.
Claims Mr. Merrill does not deal with:
CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are today: Claim proven.
CO2 levels are beneficial: Claim proven.
Earth has natural mechanisms for dealing with increased CO2: Claim proven.
Climate Change is not adversely affecting Cyclones: Claim proven.
Climate Change is not adversely affecting Wildfires: Claim proven.
Climate Change is not adversely affecting Arctic or Antarctic ice: Claim proven.
Climate Change is not adversely affecting Polar Bears: Claim proven.
Climate Change is not adversely affecting Sea Level: Claim proven.
Climate Change is normal and natural: Claim appears to have been proven.
There is a difference between "Anthropogenic Global Warming" and "Global Warming": Point proven.
There is no "consensus" among scientists on this subject, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven.
There is uncertainty, regardless of IPCC claims: Point proven.
There are other theories, largely ignored, for the observed Global Warming: Point proven.
The rest of Mr. Merrill's Round 5 post was a poorly formatted table, where he, again, misrepresents the data, for instance:
Authors / Researchers: 1
Scientific Accreditation: N
AGW Acknowledgement: Y
Heartland is a strong opponent of AGW, and proponent of Natural and Normal Global Warming. Therefore they do not "acknowledge" AGW. Did Mr. Merrill misread?
Organization: National Interagency Fire Center
Authors / Researchers: Organization
Scientific Accreditation: Established
AGW Acknowledgement: Off Topic
Unfortunately for Mr. Merrill, this is very much "on topic" as the claim by the IPCC and Climate Alarmists is how AGW will make conditions more amenable to more fires that do more damage. The Observations do not support this conclusion.
And the list goes on. I estimate I have about 2000 characters left in this reply, but I will not torture the readers with a full accounting of Mr. Merrill's latest attempt to avoid the discussion. This list as provided shows one of Mr. Merrill's greatest flaws: he takes things in a vacuum. Each point, in and of itself, is NOTHING without the rest of the information provided.
CO2 concentrations are increasing. History must be observed: what has happened in the past? Has CO2 ever been this high? Does CO2 cause warming, or does CO2 come after the warming? Biosphere reactions must be observed: what happens when CO2 increases? What happens to plants? What happens to animals? What happens to the atmosphere? What happens to the oceans?
Yet, with each point of contention that Mr. Merrill attempted to deal with, he is unwilling or unable to take into account all the information available. Therefore his arguments are very narrow in scope and shallow in content.
In any case, Mr. Merrill, it is unfortunate that you spent most of your 50,000 characters avoiding the discussion. I was hoping to see new evidences, new information; and I was really hoping for a detailed and supported argument about the lack of support for AGW. Instead, I find myself disappointed by the avoidance, the abundance of Logical Fallacies, the lack of an actual argument, and the failure to follow good debating decorum.
Good luck to you in whatever further arguments you decide to undertake; from my experience here, you are going to need it.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|