The Instigator
SGM_iz_SekC
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
OracleOfReason
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Global warming exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
SGM_iz_SekC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 58719
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

SGM_iz_SekC

Con

Pro may use their first round, but not round 5.
Pro has BoP. Pro has to prove the topic right. I will argue (as con) that global warming does not exist.
OracleOfReason

Pro

The instigator has set the rules of the debate. I thank him for that. Please allow me to recapitulate.

"Pro may use their first round, but not round 5.
Pro has BoP. Pro has to prove the topic right. I will argue (as con) that global warming does not exist."

The topic is "Global Warming Exists."

Since this, so formulated, is totally open-ended I will state some definitions. It is open-ended because "Global warming" is left undefined. Left the way it is, I only need show that the Earth has had a hotter year than a previous year to show that "global warming exists." Thus the debate would end here. I do not believe that was the intention of the instigator even if he framed the debate this way. However, since the term "Anthropogenic" is not included, I will not include it here. I only need show that "Global Warming" (see below) exists now, and NOT that is a consequence of making's action under the rules of this debate.

I would like to address one issue up front, this is the issue of intellectual authority.

Authority
au"thor"i"ty [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-]
noun, plural au"thor"i"ties.
[1-4] redacted
5.an accepted source of information, advice, etc.

We will reference the definition (5) here. "An accepted source of information"
In the 21st Century, it is recognized that science and technology have reached a stage where educational specialization is necessary for technical disciplines. No longer can just anyone hang up a shingle and practice medicine. Now, a degree from an accredited university is necessary. In addition, we recognize that people with medical degrees, have an intellectual authority in the field of medicine. This means specifically, their opinion in the matters of medicine carry more weight than the opinions of those who have not obtained the same degree. Climate Science is also such field. The conclusion here is that people with advanced degrees in Climate Sciences have more authority in when discussing "Global Warming" than does the non-climate scientist.

"Climate change skeptics regularly denounce me as a disgrace to journalism for declining to accept their dogma, which is mostly received wisdom from sources that I'd trust to evaluate the published science about as much as I'd trust a plumber to perform open heart surgery.
Nothing against plumbers, mind you. They're just not heart surgeons. And the economists, statisticians and agenda-driven politicians routinely cited by the skeptics aren't glaciologists, botanists, biologists, oceanographers, atmospheric physicists or computer modelling specialists." -James Hoggan

For a working definition of "Global Warming," I suggest we use "Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system."

Climate VS Weather
The discussion here is about climate vs weather. I have included a video to show the difference.
https://www.youtube.com...

Since It is hard to add to the arguments in this video, I'll allow it to stand on its own. This debate is about CLIMATE not Weather.

Global Warming Introduction

We are in the midst of a warning trend. Various fluctuations happen, in climate, over time, However, the current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years
(see)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5 " B.D. Santer et.al., "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, "Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method," Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., "Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling," Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes," Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

Physical realities
1 Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades - NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

2 Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade is nearly double that of the last century. - Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602

3 The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.-Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955"2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

4 Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.- L. Polyak, et.al., "History of Sea Ice in the Arctic," in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7 - R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, "Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008," Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009 - http://nsidc.org...

5 Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world " including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. -National Snow and Ice Data Center - World Glacier Monitoring Service

6 Temperature data from 4 separate international science institutions show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. -http://climate.nasa.gov...

Subjective Realities - English speaking Nations
James Powell searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 12 November 2012 that had the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology http://www.jamespowell.org...

By Mr. Powell's definition 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject human-caused global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors (rounded to 33,700 in the figure). The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.

What we MINIMALLY see here is there were 13,950 and 580 out of every 581 peer-reviewed scientific articles were about AGW or AGW effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Since AGW is dependent of "Global Warming" a priori, we deduce those papers endorse the idea of global warming.

Here is Mr. Powell"s interpretation of his study:
"When a new scientific theory is first proposed, scientists often go out of their way to state explicitly that they reject it, or that they accept it. This was the case with continental drift in the 1920s, with plate tectonics in the 1960s, and with the Alvarez theory of dinosaur extinction in the 1980s. One reading the literature in these fields can usually tell from the title of an article alone whether an author rejects the new theory. But after a theory achieves maturity and becomes the ruling paradigm, scientists no longer see any point in stating explicitly that they accept the now-no-longer-new theory. They take it as a given, often as an observational fact"like the measured movement of tectonic plates and the measured global temperature rise. To explicitly endorse the ruling theory would have the counter-effect of suggesting that the theory is in doubt. It is obvious that global warming has achieved the status of the ruling paradigm of climate science. Thus it is reasonable to assume that publishing scientists who today reject human-caused global warming would make it clear that they do so, while publishing scientists who accept the theory would not feel the need to say so explicitly. As a practical matter, virtually all of the global warming papers that Oreskes and I separately reviewed can be classified as about effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Authors of these papers would hardly be likely to deny the existence of the very thing they are writing about. It is theoretically possible that a paper on paleoclimatology could be the exception, dealing with the lack of evidence for CO2-driven global warming in the geologic past, say, leading the author to question the seriousness of modern, human-caused global warming. I did not find such papers. What we know for a fact is that among the authors of peer-reviewed articles, only a tiny fraction, which I estimate as about 1 author in 1,000, rejects human-caused global warming. In my opinion, based on my understanding of the history of science, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all publishing climate scientists accept that human activities are causing the Earth to warm. Polls of scientists reinforce this conclusion, but polls are no substitute for the primary, peer-reviewed literature, the ground truth of science." http://www.jamespowell.org...

The International Community (All of the world is NOT the United States)
Science and global warming affects all of us. Global Warming is not a US ONLY issue, yet climate change denial, to a very large extent is. It is at least almost limited to the English speaking world with over 80% of it being in the US. The issue of "global warming" is not a political controversy in most countries. How is that possible is Global Warming is not really happening?
Debate Round No. 1
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

c1.
1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"
2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.
3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.
4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.
5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.
Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.
If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

Rebuttal to physical realities
1. Scientists have only been observing temperature objectively since the 1970's, which proves pro wrong on this point.
2. My opponent provides links to few of his claims, so they should be considered false.
3. "http://nsidc.org...; does not work. (page not found) so that is thrown out.
4. The record is less than 30 years (there were fluctuations until 1980), so I doubt this is any proof. Scientists can tell you how long a star upwards of 50 light-years away will die with more accuracy than telling you next week's weather. (Earth has very unpredictable climate and weather due to large amounts of liquid water.) Short-term warming is not the Earth's climate changing.
5. http://www.globalresearch.ca... (yay canada)
6. There have been 27-year long heat/cold fluctuations since 1428. (link above)
7. Actually, the 1900's are even better proof of this. (link above)
8. Pro has not fulfilled BoP, so it is safe to say that pro cannot prove this topic.
OracleOfReason

Pro

I will start by thanking the CON side for their response.

One does not "declare" facts. CON's arguments are false memes without substance.

1. No Global Warming
CON: "There hasn't been any global warming since 1997." (DECLARATION)
There is no substantiation for this claim. it is patently false. It also shows the CON side either did not look at the video or did not understand it.

CON: "It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?" The CON side "declared" a meme, "there is no global warming" and asks a rhetorical question based on the false meme.

2. No Scientific Consensus
CON:"There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man" (DECLARATION)
Again a declared meme, and false. I have shown that of all peer reviewed articles written the last thirty years over 99.7% of them concurred that global warming is happening. Simply stating there is no consensus means nothing.

The only argument presented against consensus is a propaganda document called "The OISM Petition." Almost everything about this supposed propaganda document is suspect. CON references this here:

CON: " Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming."

Now to sign on to this document one has to state one was a "scientist." That includes Medical Doctors, Materials Engineers, etc. While these are certainly complex fields, being a Medical Doctor does not give one special insights into Climate Science. On top of this, the number of scientists are inflated for propaganda effect.

This document is very much like "100 authors against Einstein," a document, signed by two real "scientists" and a number of others. Einstein"s response was telling, "if Relativity was False, 1 author would be quite enough."

Consider this from:http://www.skepticalscience.com...

"At this point it"s literally impossible to know because the names and degrees on the (above) list cannot be verified by anyone outside the OISM. We can only take the OISM"s word that they"re all real names, that all the degrees are correct, and so on. This does not stand up to the most basic tests of scientific credibility." ...

"Ultimately, The OISM petition will continue to rear it"s ugly head until its fabricated credibility has been thoroughly demolished. Social conservatives and libertarians, each of which has their own ideological reasons to push the OISM petition, have been effective at keeping the "30,000 scientists reject warming chicken-littleism of IPCC" meme circulating throughout conservative media outlets, even as climate disruption-focused media have worked at limiting the damage from the OISM petition. But given the fact that the science supporting a dominantly anthropogenic cause for climate disruption is overwhelming, it"s only a matter of time before the OISM petition wilts in the heat."

There is a worse part here. This is a propaganda document propagated by propaganda sites on the Internet.

More than this, the CON misses that even this validates the PRO side.

CON writes:
" Over 31,000 [unverified] scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming."

But these same people make no claim that Global Warming is NOT happening. They say humans aren"t causing GW. Now the fact that they address that humans are not CAUSE of the problem implies that they recognize that the problem exists.

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication and peer review."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Arctic Ice misconception
Again, a short term trend presented as Climate science. This example almost invalidates CONs entire argument as it shows two extreme problems with CON"s reasoning. The first is that he only addresses arctic ice "EXTENT" not its MASS which is a much more significant measurement.
"Just to clarify, not only is the Arctic sea ice extent decreasing, but just as critical, the mean thickness of the Arctic sea ice pack also has precipitously decreased. In fact, although not quite an ice extent minimum record year, by February, this year was already a minimum record year for the amount of thick multiyear ice present in the pack. "

Secondly he falls into the trap which was displayed in the Degrasse video above. Citing a statistic over six months shows a marked lack of understanding of the basic science involved.

3. James Hansen"s "Prediction"
"James Hansen made his statement in response to a question by Bob Reiss, a journalist and author, in 1988. He did not predict that the West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years.

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as:

"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio""n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

James Hansen reports the conversation as follows:
"Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount."

SO the quote used is out of context and DOES NOT says what CON purports it to say. Again, this calls serious question into CON"s selection of data sources and ability to validate data.

USE OF SUSPECT DATA SOURCES.
One of the most disturbing parts of CON"s arguments is his reliance on Propaganda sites for information. Data on the internet is highly suspect and requires a measure of data validation. It is easy to find "evidence" for almost anything on the Internet. It is not easy to find AUTHORITATIVE information on the Internet. To give an Hypothetical example, it is as if we had been debating the Israeli-Palestians conflict and CON only referenced HAMAS websites.

Dr. Roy Spencer http://en.wikipedia.org...(scientist)
"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that "Earth and its ecosystems " created by GOD'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND INFINITE POWER AND SUSTAINED BY HIS FAITHFUL PROVIDENCE " are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting""

This is HARDLY a SCIENTIFIC authority. Invoking "intelligent Design" (Myth) is mixing Religion with "science" and hardly lends credibility to the Dr. Spencer"s authority. I suspect, as do most others, that Dr. Spencer"s reliance on ancient superstitions has more to do with his work than does the science.

"In 2011, Spencer and Braswell published a paper in Remote Sensing concluding that more energy is radiated back to space and released earlier than previously thought. Spencer stated, "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

The paper was criticized by mainstream climate scientists.Kerry Emanuel of MIT, said this work was cautious and limited mostly to pointing out problems with forecasting heat feedback.

The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that IT ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS OF ITS OPPONENTS. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal." Wagner added he, "would also like to PERSONALLY PROTEST AGAINST HOW THE AUTHORS AND LIKE-MINDED CLIMATE SCEPTICS HAVE MUCH EXAGGERATED THE PAPER'S CONCLUSIONS IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS"

Continuing to the GlobalResearch Link, this is NOT a reputable organization.

This site is set up and run by Michel Chossudovsky, The Western Standard included Chossudovsky on the list of "Canada's nuttiest professors, those whose absurdity stands head and shoulders above their colleagues"; criticizing Chussodovsky's thesis and views " that the U.S. had knowledge of the September 11 attacks before they happened; that Washington had weapons that could influence climate change; and lastly, that the large banking institutions are the cause of the collapse of smaller economies " as "wild-eyed conspiracy theories". Such as Washington's New World Order Weapons Can Trigger Climate Change" - Michel Chossudovsky

Here is a GlobalResearch Link about the 9/11 conspiracy
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

The Vaccine Conspiracy
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

The Zionist Conspiracy
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

And of course, The New World Order
http://www.globalresearch.ca...

As I look over CON"s arguments, there is no attempt, at all, to validate the authority of the statements presented.
Global warming has been shown and there has yet to have been a single verifiable argument lodged against it here.
Debate Round No. 2
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

I apologize ahead of time if my arguments are few in number and cover few grounds. I am cut for time at the moment, but will try my best to get the most arguments in. I thank my opponent for their response.

1. Pro still does not fulfill BoP, even if my arguments are declared false or broken apart, this does not immediately make them fulfill BoP, which they still have yet to do.

2. I have more scientific evidence that my opponent did not address.

3. A group of 15 scientists and meteorologists have put forward a scathing rebuttal to the Obama administration"s recent climate report which said the U.S. is already being harmed by global warming.
Scientists skeptical that mankind is causing the Earth"s climate to change say that such claims are based on false theories and flawed models. The White House report is a "masterpiece of marketing" that is trying to scare people into action, scientists said.
"As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of "Climate Change," however scary, is not proof of anything," wrote the 15 scientists and meteorologists,including Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University and Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency"s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
"Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration"s version of "Global Warming," "Climate Change," "Climate Disruption," or whatever their marketing specialists call it today," they continued.
The White House"s "National Climate Assessment" (NCA), released last week, claimed that the U.S. was already being affected by global warming though warmer temperatures and increasing extreme weather events.
But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth"s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide.
"This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes," the skeptics wrote. "As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions."
"We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth"s climate by burning fossil fuels," they added. "The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true."
The NCA says the U.S. average temperature has risen between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895, which is causing more extreme weather, like hurricanes and droughts, and harming fragile ecosystems around the country.
The NCA also warns that the U.S. average temperature could rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming decades if nothing is done to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The report suggests a slew of regulatory solutions from cap-and-trade to green energy subsidies to mitigate global warming.
""Global Warming" has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred," the skeptical scientists rebutted. "For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend and the Antarctic cooled slightly."[1]

I had more info that pro did not address, that had many scientists behind them.

[1] http://dailycaller.com...

4. As the Obama administration and Senate Democrats feverishly stoke up hellfire and brimstone global warming alarm to promote a Climate Action Plan, leading voices in green choir robes have abandoned the climate crisis hymnal.

Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, quit the activist environmental organization in 1986 after it strayed away from objective science and took a sharp turn to the political left.

Testifying on Feb. 25 before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee"s Subcommittee on Oversight, he took issue with the U.N."s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim that "Since the mid-20th century it is "extremely likely" that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming."

Moore pointed out "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," arguing that "perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of extreme certainty is to look at the historical record."

He told the committee: "When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an ice age occurred 450 million years ago when carbon dioxide was 10 times higher than today."

Moore also noted that "The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910"1942 human influence." Why then, he asks, "does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?"

Moore emphasized that there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. On the other hand, there is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent Socialist and a father of Germany"s environmental movement, has become another strong critic of the IPCC"s alarmist global warming doctrine. His lack of trust began while serving as an expert reviewer for an IPCC renewable energy report as the renewable energy division head of Germany"s second largest utility company.

Upon discovering and pointing out numerous factual inaccuracies to IPCC officials, they simply brushed them aside. Stunned by this, he began to wonder if IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy. After digging into the IPCC"s climate report he was horrified to find similar incompetency and misrepresentations, including climate models that were fudged to produce exaggerated temperature increases.

Dr. Vahrenholt concluded: "The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results." And although CO2 may have some warming influence, he believes that the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

James Lovelock, a highly respected scientist, predicted in 2006 that: "Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where climate remains tolerable."

More recently, however, he admitted to MSNBC: "We don"t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books . . . mine included . . . because it looked clear cut . . . but it hasn"t happened."

The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, "The climate is doing its usual tricks . . . there"s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now." He added, "Yet the temperature has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising . . . carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that."

Moore, Vahrenholt, and Lovelock are but three within an expanding multitude of scientists who are cooling on climate alarm.

When previously asked on Fox Business News who is responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives are, Moore said: "A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue."

Moore warns that, "The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it"s not good for the environment. In a warmer world we can produce more food."

Nobel Laureate physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever has referred to global warming ideology as a "pseudoscience" that begins with an emotionally-appealing hypothesis, and "then only looks for items which appear to support it," while ignoring ample contrary evidence.

Tragically, that pseudoscience does greatest injustice to those who can least afford it.[2]

Pseudoscience is not science, the climate change claim was started by liberals and democrats. It is also supported by those politicians. Let me remind you that NASA is government funded, therefor does what the government wants.

[2] Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com...
OracleOfReason

Pro

OracleOfReason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

My opponent forfeited a round, and has not fulfilled BoP. Therefor, losing conduct and convincing argument points. Vote con!

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 23 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.

Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com...
OracleOfReason

Pro

OracleOfReason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SGM_iz_SekC

Con

My opponent has forfeited two rounds. My arguments still stand. I will not post anymore arguments for this round, because pro has not fulfilled BoP.
OracleOfReason

Pro

OracleOfReason forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:

"I want to "talk about " the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. "

"Let"s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results " .

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it"s consensus, it isn"t science. If it"s science, it isn"t consensus. " ." " Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc". Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
SGM_iz_SekCOracleOfReasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to CON due to forfeit, arguments goes to con because BOP was not fulfilled
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
SGM_iz_SekCOracleOfReasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
SGM_iz_SekCOracleOfReasonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had some strong arguments. This could have been an interesting debate if Pro hadn't of Forfeited. Points to con