The Instigator
epidexipteryx
Pro (for)
The Contender
pianodude2468
Con (against)

Man Made Climate Change Is Fake

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
pianodude2468 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 94778
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

epidexipteryx

Pro

Please stick to only the man-made part of this argument. I am not denying the world is heating or any possible effects of that. I am saying that man does not cause it.

Also, quoting a consensus is NOT science. I want to hear your argument, not some random scientists. Science is based off of hard facts and evidence to support claims, not a consensus of random scientists whether they studied climate or not.

Here are my reasons:
1.There is NO way to test whether Co2 is the most contributing factor to the world"s climate:
Many people I have met say, "Man made global warming is real and Co2 is the cause!" but how do you actually test that. Yes, Co2 is a greenhouse gas and traps warmth, I am not denying that. What we haven"t tested is whether this warmth has a great enough impact to trump all other factors that influence climate. For example, ocean currents, cosmic rays, sun irradiance, the sun spot cycle, Earth"s magnetic field, Earth"s orbit, Earth"s tilt, Volcanos, etc" all effect the climate. Why is Co2 more important than all of these factors? Let"s find out! Oh, wait, you can"t. This is where you reach a problem. How do you find out? You can"t, scientifically, create a real, controlled experiment to test whether Co2 has a bigger impact than any of these other factors. This means that the entire idea that Co2 causes climate change is based on computer models and it can"t actually be tested. This shows that the idea that Co2 causes warming is less science then it is religion because you are putting your faith in a computer model rather than observing and recording data. Keep in mind that simple correlations do not qualify as scientific data.
Proof that greenhouse gasses don"t have a large impact on climate can be found at the bottom of this page at "Final Proof."

2.The computer models don"t work
The computer models mentioned previously have been shown not to work time and time again. Even the most advanced ones fail and don"t predict the correct temperature. This is because people think that Co2 has more of an impact then it really does so when they program it into the models it messes with the correct predictions. This is why the vast majority of climate models predict temperature is way higher than it is.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com......

3.Co2 is a weak greenhouse gas
According to atomic absorption spectroscopy, a method used to measure the amount of the electromagnetic spectrum a molecule can absorb, Co2 can only store a miniscule 7% of the amount of heat that passes through it in the 15 micrometer range. Compare this to water vapor, which, in statistics, can store 850% more heat than Co2 can. In addition to this, there is 2100000% more water vapor in the air then Co2. This shows that Co2 is actually a relatively weak greenhouse gas and for it to make an impact you would need much more of it then there is now.

4.There is not as much Co2 as you might think
I have constantly heard, over and over again, that there is too much Co2 in the atmosphere. The problem with this statement is that it is just plain wrong. Comparing the amount of Co2 we have in the atmosphere now (400 parts per million, ppm for short) and we have had in the last 650 million years shows that now we are in a Co2 starved era. For example, look at this graph:
http://www.paulmacrae.com......
Keep in mind that this graph only goes back 650 million years. Co2 has been over 10000ppm in the past and temperature had been relatively low at that time.

5.The earth has been warming for 20,000 years now:
Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. This is because the world has been warming naturally for the last 20,000 years and the recent uptick in warming started in the 1700s. Both of these time periods were before any humans were releasing any significant amount of Co2. This only proves that the current warm phase is natural.
https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com......
More evidence would be that there hasn"t been any significant warming in the last 20 years. Yes, this is a small amount of time, but if temperature truly relied on Co2 as its main cause then surely the temperature should have gone up. Especially considering that 25% of all Co2 released by man ever has been released into the atmosphere in the last few decades.

The political side of things:
This is a big topic so I won"t be able to cover everything but I will do the most important topics under this subject.
The 97% number: This number is thrown around way too often and most of the time misused. This number came from a study that stated as its conclusion, "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real" but everyone seems to think it said man-made climate change was real. Another problem with this number is that it came from a survey that completely manipulated almost every scientific paper that was submitted. All the papers in the survey were ultimately sent to one man (John Cook) who categorized based on what he thought they meant. Not only is this a biased way of filtering through papers but what the papers said depended on his opinion, not on their actual statements. This anti-science method of categorizing papers eventually led thousands of scientific papers to be misrepresented in the survey.
Watch this video to hear what I said but in a more in-depth way:
https://www.youtube.com......

The 2 degree rise: This claim is also completely bogus. The idea that a 2 degree rise in average temperature is going to devastate the world is just plain wrong. The world was 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period 1000 years. Then, before the medieval warming period was the Roman warming period which was warmer then the medieval. Then, even before the Roman, there was the Minoan warming period which was 4 degrees Celsius warmer then today.

The hockey stick: The graph was fabricated and is completely fake and manipulated. I"m too lazy to explain it all so click on the presentation someone else made below to find out why I"m right:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org......

The final proof:
And now, I present to you, the final proof of why man-made climate change isn"t real:
It is known that cosmic rays effect temperature by increasing evaporation, and, in turn, causing more cloud cover which reflects the suns heat off the earth. This disproves man-made climate change because the water vapor, which is 850% more potent then Co2, doesn"t cause the earth to warm more than the clouds it forms causes the Earth to cool. This just proves the fact that other factors in the climate have way more of an effect on the overall temperature then most greenhouse gasses and the idea that Co2, which is weaker then water vapor, solely dictates climate is just plain wrong.
pianodude2468

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity for this debate,

I would like to start by making a few observations:
1) I am arguing that the human race has had a measurable impact on global warming. I acknowledge that natural climate change does happen. I will debate that humans are contributing to recent global warming.
2) My opponent says that quoting a consensus is not science. However, it has to be seen that a scientific study by real scientists is going to be more reliable than some kind of theory or home conducted experiment.

Before we begin I would just like to ask for evidence behind the claims in point 3 just for reference.

I will begin by analyzing my opponents case and then move on to my own.

My opponents 1st point states that there is no hard proof that CO2 from humans is the most important part to causing global warming. Even if it's not the MOST important part, if humans have any impact than we are changing the climate from what is natural. I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest.

2: My opponent argues that the computer models don't work. Even if this is true, there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact. Also, computer models are just a way of prediction and we can't expect them to be 100% correct.

3: My opponent argued that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. My opponent argues that water vapor has a stronger green house effect. Even if this is true, adding CO2 to the atmosphere is actually a cause for more humid atmosphere making it worse. So even if you believe my opponent that it is actually the water vapor that is the more disastrous greenhouse gas, this problem stems from CO2 also, which stems from humans. http://www.nasa.gov...

Basically my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact which is not a scientific claim and there is an undoubted correlation between CO2 and warming.

4: In response to my opponents claim that their is less CO2 now than ever before, according to Freedman at climate central, "CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years." http://www.climatecentral.org...

Also, from NASA. "atmospheric carbon dioxide does naturally fluctuate, but it's never been has high as it is today" http://globalclimate.ucr.edu... (i would recommend looking at this graph for the link provided!

5: Your statement about the temperature increasing for the past 20,000 years is true, however that was when the last severe cold stage in the climate happened. So naturally the climate is on its way to being warmer.

Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural.

As for the political arguments. That is probably all true, but does not prove that humans don't have to do with global warming.

Now for my case:

1: Humans are altering the climate.

My evidence comes in 3 stages.

1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming.

2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle.
https://www.newscientist.com...

3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change.

Some may still remain skeptical in believing that there are things that may not be CO2 causing global warming. While other causes like volcanic eruptions, or the tilt of the earth have had causes thousands of year ago. We are seeing trends in the the atmoshphere that point to CO2 being the cause as opposed to thermal energy. Check out the video here.
https://www.skepticalscience.com...
Debate Round No. 1
epidexipteryx

Pro

*Sorry for assuming your gender but I didn't realize that I wrote "he" instead of "they" until the very end! :)

Im going to start my argument by countering my opponents observations.
His first observation states that he will debate that humans are contributing to the already natural processes but my question is contributing how much. There is not doubt in my mind that Co2 causes warming. The question is whether this warming is significant or not. To clarify, I believe the warming Co2 creates is insignificant and barely has an effect on climate.

His second observation states that quoting a scientific consensus is science. He is correct in saying that a consensus is
more scientific then a home experiment but a scientific paper or research article is better then both. Especially when there is so much controversy about the validity of the consensus.

My opponent then addresses my first argument and states, "I will provide empirical evidence that in fact it has a huge impact if not the biggest" yet he provides no evidence after this claim.

I run into the same problem when he addresses my second claim. He says, " there is other evidence that proves CO2 does have an impact" while providing NO scientific evidence. (keep in mind that correlations do NOT show causation so giving a graph of temperature and Co2 rising is not sufficient evidence) He also says that computer models are not always going to be 100% correct which is true but you would expect the predictions made by said models to be closer to the observations. The fact that only a small majority of the models show similar trends to our observations indicate that something is wrong with the models.

In my opponents addressing of my third statement, he makes a valid case, pointing out the fact that Co2 increases atmospheric humidity but disregards the fact that water vapor then condenses into clouds which then reflect heat and light energy away from the earth, therefore cooling it down. I mentioned this at the end of my argument under the label, "The Final proof" where I explained how cosmic rays cause cooling and why this disproves the greenhouse effect.

My opponent then says, "my opponent is stating we would need more CO2 to see an impact." Although I did not state this before, I do agree with this statement. My opponent says this is a unscientific claim but ignores that planets, such as Venus, with extraordinary high (96%) levels of Co2 in their atmosphere are warmer because of it. Nasa says that venus would not be as hot as it is without Co2 or methane.

My opponent also says there is an undoubted correlation between Co2 and warming but this statement depends on what time period you are looking at. For example, according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Other sources say that the correlation strength is just .07 or .02 (1998-2007). according to Joe Bastardi, Co2 has a correlation strength to temperature of just .43 (1895-2007). Compare this correlation strength to the correlation strength of sunspots and the ocean, .57 (1900-2004) and .85 (1900-2007). As you can see, the correlation strength of Co2 compared to other correlations is anything but strong. Another thing to point out is that over longer periods of time, Co2 has almost no correlation to temperature. I meant to put this graph in my argument above but I posted the wrong link so here is the evidence supporting my claim:
http://www.paulmacrae.com...

Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com...

Then, in my opponents fifth point, he states, "Today though, we are seeing this clearly attributed to CO2 in the air from humans as the temperature goes beyond what would be seen as natural."
This is just an untrue statement. The majority of the worlds lifespan has been spent with no ice on the poles and the dinosaurs lived in an environment that was much hotter then today. Also, as I mentioned earlier, in the past 1000 years, during the medieval warming period, temperature was 2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and that was only in the last 1000 years!

Thanks for acknowledging that the political arguments are irrelevant, I have argued with many people about this topic before and the political arguments always come up so I wanted to include some just to ward people off if that is what they were planning to debate.

In my opponents case he just states everything that I have already disproven.

He says greenhouse gasses cause warming but Co2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and there is not much of it in the atmosphere.

He says humans are netting 15 gigatons of Co2 into the atmosphere which is true but he doesn't explain why, if there is so much Co2 in the air, there has been no significant warming in the last 2 decades. Especially when 25% of all human caused Co2 emissions occurred during that time period. Another problem is that the chart he provided of the carbon cycle is wrong. I have seen charts like it before and the problem with them is that they don't explain rises in Co2, sometimes over periods of millions of years, in the past. According to that chart, Co2 would be on a constant decline. We know this is not true because looking at a graph he provided us (http://assets.climatecentral.org...)
Co2 is constantly in balance with the environment. It is not on an overall decrease.

To my opponents final message, I don't know why the atmosphere is warming if it is not caused by Co2. I am not even going to try and come up with other reasons because the climate is constantly changing and to complex for me to completely understand. I have seen the video you sent me, along with all the other videos in that college course. The problem with the video is that it relies on the idea that Co2 causes warming. Without any significant warming affects, how do they know the "fingerprint" it leaves? This just causes a loop back to the debate about whether it actually causes warming or not.

After reading your responses and acknowledging the claims you have made, I see no real scientific evidence of man-made global warming. Yes, there are correlations and yes, there are consensuses, but none of these are true pieces of evidence.
True evidence would be performing a controlled experiment and testing only 1 variable at a time. As I explained in my first argument, this is not possible.

In conclusion, I await your next argument and wish you the best of luck in debating me.
pianodude2468

Con

My opponent kept mentioning that I was making claims without backing them. I was unclear but that's because my case was at the bottom and had gone over that evidence. To eliminate as much confusion as possible I will add all that evidence with those statements that appeared to have none.

My evidence that CO2 has a huge impact is here:

1: My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming.

2: humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle.
https://www.newscientist.com......

3: If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change.

Of course my opponent clarified that the real debate is how much CO2 has an impact and whether it is miniscule.
So they would say some measure that CO2 is a major player in changing the climate. That evidence is in trends in the atmosphere where lower layers are heating up and upper layers are not. This is a sign of CO2 causing the heating.

On top of that, use my opponents point that if venus didn't have as much CO2 they would be significantly cooler. This proves that there is significant correlation between CO2 and climate. Then throw in how much CO2 humans throw into the atmosphere and what trends we are seeing now and conclude for yourself.

This all rest the case that climate change is being effected by men. My opponent is probably going to argue that they need to see cold hard numbers, but this is not grounds to throw out the logic I have provided. Its impossible to measure with certainty exactly how much people are impacting. But the logic is there and evidence does point to CO2 being the main cause.

Also, just in case my opponent isn't sure that CO2 is coming from people, I ask he or she look to this evidence again that shows the carbon cycle was working naturally until industrial CO2 overloaded it. https://www.newscientist.com...

My opponent is always saying that the correlation is not strong. For this just keep in mind the physical signs we are seeing that it is CO2 such as the atmospheric patterns of heating showing that CO2 is the cause of this, not other signs. It doesn't get much more scientific.

My opponent writes "Then my opponent states the Co2 has not been higher then today within the last 800,000 years. This is true, but there is a problem this points out. The temperature HAS been higher then today. This just proves that temperature acts independent of Co2. Co2 has not been higher then today while temperature has risen up to 4 degrees Celsius hotter then today."
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com......

Of course the graph they is of one place which is a spotlight fallacy. You can't point to one location. Also the largest difference in temperatures is in 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 10,000 years.

When my opponent quotes me saying the temperature todays is unnatural, they misunderstood my point.

I wasn't saying that extreme temperatures haven't occurred naturally. I meant that we would expect the dramatic changes to be much further apart. In the years before the recent era major changes in climate were rare and on somewhat of a cycle of hot to cold and back with even spacing of time. now we are seeing changes much more erratically and quickly.

My opponent is arguing that man made climate change has not been proven with fool proof certainty and has turned this into an evidence debate.
So far this debate has been a debate of clashing evidence that cancel out each-others claims. There has been a lot of research on each side that can just as reliably disprove the other. At this point it is time to look to logical claims and each side ought to put up some logic to the claim.

I have given a clear thought process as to why men and women have had an impact on the climate. I would like to see logical sequential ideas that lead to the notion that climate change must be all natural.

Thanks for this debate to this point so far. (:
Debate Round No. 2
epidexipteryx

Pro

My opponents first second and third points state, "My opponent has acknowledged that CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gasses cause global warming...
humans are netting 15 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere that has no place in the carbon cycle. Prior to industry all carbon fit into the cycle...
If CO2 causes warming, and humans are omitting extra CO2 that we are having an impact on climate. Thus I hold my claim that humans are impacting climate change."

To respond to this, I would like to bring up the argument that there is not that much Co2 in the atmosphere compared to the Earths past. 15 gigatons sounds like a lot but it compared to the Earths past Co2 has been much higher.
http://www.paulmacrae.com...
In addition to this, historical evidence shows that Co2 has no correlation to temperature and most ice core data shows that higher temperature causes Co2 increase, not the other way around.

My opponents next claim is that there are significant "fingerprints" caused by Co2 induced heating in the atmosphere.
This is not a valid point because I am arguing that Co2 doesn't cause enough heat to significantly impact the atmosphere in the way my opponent is describing. This just brings us in a circle back to the argument that is if CO2 causes warming or not.

My opponents next correlation is that since Venus has high Co2 concentrations and it is known that this is why venus is hot it would make sense that we would be seeing the same effects on Earth.

My response to this is that Venus's atmosphere is 96% Co2. This is more then enough Co2 to have a significant impact on its atmosphere. This is drastically different from Earth where only about .03% of our atmosphere is Co2.

I agree that humans are putting Co2 into the atmosphere

My opponent then states that we are seeing rapid climate changes and that this is unnatural about the current climate change. While we are experiencing rapid rates of climate change, these changes are not unique to Earth.
The entire solar system seems to be going through a sort of "climate-change phase." Within the last 20 years scientists at NASA and around the world have realized that the planets we are looking at now are different than those in 1900s. This indicates that the entire solar system is in some sort of solar-system wide climate change. For example, the ice caps on Mars are shrinking (indicating warming) and the atmosphere is gaining clouds and ozone, Pluto is experiencing a growth of its mysterious dark spots and is experiencing a 300% increase in atmospheric pressure (indicating warming), Saturn is giving off large amount of x rays and there are new appearances of "hot spots" in its atmosphere (indicating warming), there have been polar shifts on Uranus and voyager 2 picked up large storm spots In its atmosphere that were not there 50 years ago (indicating warming), Mercury is growing a magnetic field and polar ice caps, Jupiter"s plasma clouds melding together in its atmosphere and becoming brighter (this is theorized to have been caused by an 18 degree Celsius warming and this is supported by the new large storm spots appearing on Jupiter for the first time), Venus has had a 2500% increase in green glow which symbolizes oxygen in the atmosphere, and Neptune is experiencing changes in light intensity. A dramatic shift that may be the cause of all these weird interplanetary changes is that the suns magnetic field is increasing in strength. Over the last 100 years, the suns magnetic field has increased by 230%. This increase attracts stardust from the surrounding area and this overflow of stardust may have something to do with this solar-system wide event.
This evidence shows how Earth is not the only planet going through a rapid period of climate change. This indicates that something solar-system wide may be to blame for the recent fluctuations in temperature, not Co2.

In addition to this, compared to the past 100,000 years, the rate of temperature increase does not seem to be any more rapid then it has been in the past. For example, look at this graph.
https://conscioustourism.files.wordpress.com...
In fact, looking at this graph shows that we are seeing even less fluctuations in temperature then we have in the past. This means that the rate of change and increase is unnatural because it is slow, not fast.

I have now disproven all of your claims and look forward to your next argument.
No, thank you for the debate :)
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by epidexipteryx 1 year ago
epidexipteryx
Another thing about the carbon footprint, we are not seeing the predicted warming in the troposphere. Yes the troposphere is warming slightly but scientists predicted that there would be much more warming in the atmosphere by now. For example, look at this data supplied by millions of weather balloons compared to the predictions:

http://www.outersite.org...

As you can see, while the whole troposphere has warmed slightly, there is not specific hotspot appearing in the troposphere. This means there is no carbon footprint indicating that the Co2 is not responsible for warming.
Posted by Throwback 1 year ago
Throwback
Agreed. I doubt you will convert any true believers, but beat of luck on the quality of the argument.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.