Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax
Debate Rounds (5)
Round One: Respond ONLY with "I accept" or you will be thrown out of the debate.
Round Two: Opening Statements only, NO REBUTTALS or you will be thrown out of the debate.
Round Three: Arguments AND rebuttals
Round Four: " "
Round Five: Final rebuttals and closing statements
I thank my opponent for their opening round. While I'll make some general comments as to the trend of the debate, I will refrain from posting actual rebuttals until the subsequent round, as per the Instigator's rules.
I am actually astounded at the position presented. I was expecting graphs, tables and data. Instead, we have been presented a point of view, which is axiomatic of the anti-climate change position. We have been presented an opinion.
To open my case, let me make something robustly clear. Science does not function on the basis of opinion, and to present opinion is to concede evidence. Science is apolitical.
As it stands, I agree with Pro on one point: don't follow the crowd. Instead, follow the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I take substantial grievance with the sources provided by Pro but unfortunately am constrained by the rules not to explain their absurdity until the following round. Rest assured that they will be thoroughly scrutinised and I intend to tear them apart.
Onto the evidence.
It's not two-sided
The popular Western narrative is to provide "unbiased coverage" of stories. In most cases, this is important. However, on science topics, opinion has nothing to do with anything. Facts are facts. Something is either true, or not true, and the only thing that we can use to determine whether something is true is evidence. To have two people on a talk-show, one a climate scientist and one an ostensible nobody claiming that climate scientists are the devil's children and work for multinationals is patently absurd because it misrepresents the scientific consensus (discussed below). It is not a 50/50 split. Evidence favours anthropogenic climate change, and stuffing our fingers in our ears will not refute this. If you want to disprove climate change, you must use evidence.
Of course, it would be an argument from popularity to stipulate that purely because the majority thinks something, it is true. It amounts to a special form of anecdotal evidence. However, it's a good place to start looking at why the independent scientific community agrees. As it happens, 97% of peer-reviewed papers published on the topic have found that humans are causing substantial changes to climate (1). The scientific community is clear. There is no "teaching the controversy" because there is no controversy (2). Stop making science political because agendas don't change facts.
Yeah, but, like, the climate has changed before and stuff...or whatever
True. But not like this (3). It appears that there have been around 5 ice ages in earth's past (4). There have also been other variations in climate not related to ice ages. However, let's talk about anthropogenic climate change. The hypothesis is that as CO2 increases, we should see a general increase in global temperatures. Is this the case?
Well, it would appear so. But have statistical controls accounted for extraneous variables and clarified that this is anthropogenic?
Well, yeah, they kinda have. Despite attempts at finding plausible natural explanations for the climate variation, no natural fluctuations account for the observed trends (5).
The scientific illiteracy of climate conspiracy theorists is a fundamental contributor to their perpetuation of the disinformation agenda of the corporate elite. While I obviously have substantially more evidence and could potentially just post hundreds of links to peer-reviewed journals, I prefer the argumentation. Perhaps this is sufficient for my introduction, and we'll clash next round with increased vigour when I can rebut your arguments.
Best of luck in your following round.
NDman48 forfeited this round.
My opponent concedes that man-made global warming is, in fact, real.
While at this point I would usually proceed by simply extending my previous arguments until the end of the debate, I feel that particularly poor sportsmanship has been demonstrated by my opponent. Far from constructing baseless ad hominem conjectures against my opponent, I simply deconstructed common mistakes regarding anthropogenic climate change that are made by climategate proponents. My opponent does not genuinely feel disrespected; they recognise that their position is untenable and that the belief that has been instilled in them by their right-wing, science-hating parents does not reflect anything close to observation.
You're not offended; you just know you're wrong.
My objective is now not to convince you, which I have already done, but to convince our audience.
Rebuttals from first round
My opponent stated that, "[...]an ice age goes through two phases. The first one is the obvious "freezing" phase and the second phase is a predominantly warm one(see link 1)."
While this isn't quite what the source indicates, it's basically right. There are periods of glaciation, and periods of warming. Cooling and warming are not uniform. I'd just like to quickly examine the way you've phrased this, though. Basically you're saying, it gets cold, then it gets warm. Well, obviously. If it stayed cold, we'd still be in an ice age. If it stayed warm, there'd never be ice ages. That's not helpful information.
You then say, "[we are] going back into the cold phase."
I mean, we are getting cooler...if by cooler, you mean the temperature is rising.
You then said, "At both poles there is rapidly growing ice."
Your article goes on a right-wing binge-fest with absolutely no understanding of why that is happening. It makes specific reference to Antarctica. Yes. Sea ice is growing. This is because of strengthening westerly winds blowing sheets of snow and cold air further from the coast of the Antarctic continent(1). The strengthening winds are one indication of climate change(1). Further, while the sea ice spreads in geographic area, global ocean and atmospheric temperatures continue to increase. Looking at the data for a single year (i.e. we hit a record this year) is not indicative of trend. This mistake is confusing weather for climate, and is a common error. You're also looking at a single factor in isolation, and ignoring the rest of the data.
Here's an informative video by Veritasium who describes the process and debunks some myths with the aid of some fun animations: https://www.youtube.com...
The preponderance of the evidence
The preponderance of the evidence, the consensus of the scientific literature, the data: "The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging impacts are expected to increase with warming" (Knutti & Hegerl, 2008)(2).
Once again, if you wish to demonstrate that the models are incorrect, then you must supply the evidence that climate change is not occurring.
Your reasons for doubting the science are political. Wanting something to be true or false has no bearing on whether it is true or false.
We are going to see floods of environmental refugees as a result of rising sea levels. How can one simply ignore this information?
- The pacific island nation of Kiribati has just finalised the purchase of land in Fiji to initially grow crops on after their domestic agriculture was destroyed by encroaching seawater, then as a place to relocate once their entire country sinks(3). New Zealand will have to grant the population what functionally amounts to environmental asylum.
- Tuvalu is going to sink and the population will need evacuating (4, 5)
- This is just the start of implications for changes to the climate.
My opponent had the burden of proof in demonstrating that global warming is a hoax. This has not yet been done, and if last round is anything to go by, I suspect my opponent will concede defeat. However, it would be interesting to hear his take. So, I ask you the following questions:
- What is your evidence for the hoax?
- Who initiated the hoax?
- Why did they initiate it? What's the motive?
- How is it the case that the independent scientific community, meteorologists and government bodies have separately and through peer-review arrived at the same or similar conclusions? If it was false, wouldn't the claims be widely varying?
- Who is the chief orchestrator of this grand conspiracy? They must have a leader since all their claims are the same.
- Is their really more profit to be found by scientists conducting research, than by massive oil cartels, coal and gas miners, and refiners and importers? Is renewable energy really going to earn more money for solar-cell syndicates than fossil fuels will for the energy industry?
Perhaps the conspiracy is, in fact, on the other side.
Until next round, if you decide to defend your position.
NDman48 forfeited this round.
The case is found to be resolved in the negative.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Very poor conduct from Pro.
Vote Placed by Coinsruledude 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.