Instigator / Pro
6
1438
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#537
CO2 doesn't cause climate change.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
Ramshutu
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description
CO2 doesn't cause climate change.
Round 1
Pro
#1
The models make brutal estimates and many assumptions (guesses). “Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”: Test tubes don’t have ocean currents, clouds, or rain. The “clouds and humidity” factor is mind bogglingly complex. For example, high clouds tend to warm the planet, but low clouds tend to cool it. So which effect rules? Models don’t know, but they assume clouds are net-warming. This is not a minor point: The feedback from clouds and humidity accounts for more than half of carbon’s alleged effect. E’Gad.
Thus, the above data shows that CO2 has zero effect on the climate and that if there was any change, then cloud cover would compensate for this change and reduce temperatures back to normal. This is because the Earth is a thermostat and can regulate its own temperature using cloud cover. Thus, if my opponent insists that CO2 is adding 0.0000000001 degrees Celsius warming, then this would be countered by cloud cover which would effectively cancel out this extra warming.
Con
#2
CO2 is a gas that is present in the atmosphere, that indeed does cause climate change.
Greenhouse effect principle.
Most energy gets to the earth from the sun in the form of UV and visible light radiation. It is absorbed and reflected back by the earth in the form of infra red radiation.
Gases in the atmosphere that are transparent to UV, but absorb infrared allows the energy from the sun to hit the ground, but absorbs more of the heat coming from the earth. This is referred to as “the greenhouse effect”[1]
Properties of Carbon Dioxide
The observable properties of CO2 are such that it also acts a greenhouse gas[2]
Satellite observations show that the amount of radiated heat is going down as temperatures increase [3] with a spectrum that correlated to more heat being absorbed by carbon dioxide.
Effect of heat on the climate
Climate itself can be affected and modified caused by the heat in the atmosphere, with increased heat driving more changes in climate, including more severe weather. [4]
The current rise in temperature of the earth, and the climate that is observably changing coincidence with an increase in co2[5] because of the above there can be expected to be a causal relationship: co2 traps heat, more co2, more heat.[6]
Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide
This increase of temperature from co2 increase is logarithmic, meaning that each time the co2 in the atmosphere is doubled, the amount of radiation reflected downwards increases by a linear amount 3.7W/m2, this works out to be approximately 1 degree per doubling without factoring any other process.[7] this indisputably shows that carbon dioxide is able to change the climate.
When considering feedback mechanisms - such as changes to the earth’s albedo due to heat, the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other related effects, the effect of the increase in thermal energy is actually more significant, or about 3 degrees for each doubling [8]. This rate is consistent with temperatures in different geological time and the carbon concentrations during this periods, including during recent ice ages and past geological periods where the earth was much warmer. [9]
Source of carbon dioxide.
Finally, it’s clear that humans have been responsible for the current elevated emissions. A primary way we can tell this is that by measuring the isotopic breakdown of the carbon in the atmosphere - this content has increased in line with the isotopic content of fossil fuels rather than other sources: meaning that much of the addition carbon concentration is being generated by humanity.
Conclusion:
Human co2 emissions have increased the co2 content in the atmosphere, which due to its chemical properties is affecting the climate.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
[2] https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
[3] https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
[4] https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange//kids/impacts/signs/oceans.html
[5] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
[7]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
[8]https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
[9]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
[10] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Greenhouse effect principle.
Most energy gets to the earth from the sun in the form of UV and visible light radiation. It is absorbed and reflected back by the earth in the form of infra red radiation.
Gases in the atmosphere that are transparent to UV, but absorb infrared allows the energy from the sun to hit the ground, but absorbs more of the heat coming from the earth. This is referred to as “the greenhouse effect”[1]
Properties of Carbon Dioxide
The observable properties of CO2 are such that it also acts a greenhouse gas[2]
Satellite observations show that the amount of radiated heat is going down as temperatures increase [3] with a spectrum that correlated to more heat being absorbed by carbon dioxide.
Effect of heat on the climate
Climate itself can be affected and modified caused by the heat in the atmosphere, with increased heat driving more changes in climate, including more severe weather. [4]
The current rise in temperature of the earth, and the climate that is observably changing coincidence with an increase in co2[5] because of the above there can be expected to be a causal relationship: co2 traps heat, more co2, more heat.[6]
Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide
This increase of temperature from co2 increase is logarithmic, meaning that each time the co2 in the atmosphere is doubled, the amount of radiation reflected downwards increases by a linear amount 3.7W/m2, this works out to be approximately 1 degree per doubling without factoring any other process.[7] this indisputably shows that carbon dioxide is able to change the climate.
When considering feedback mechanisms - such as changes to the earth’s albedo due to heat, the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and other related effects, the effect of the increase in thermal energy is actually more significant, or about 3 degrees for each doubling [8]. This rate is consistent with temperatures in different geological time and the carbon concentrations during this periods, including during recent ice ages and past geological periods where the earth was much warmer. [9]
Source of carbon dioxide.
Finally, it’s clear that humans have been responsible for the current elevated emissions. A primary way we can tell this is that by measuring the isotopic breakdown of the carbon in the atmosphere - this content has increased in line with the isotopic content of fossil fuels rather than other sources: meaning that much of the addition carbon concentration is being generated by humanity.
Conclusion:
Human co2 emissions have increased the co2 content in the atmosphere, which due to its chemical properties is affecting the climate.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
[2] https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
[3] https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
[4] https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange//kids/impacts/signs/oceans.html
[5] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
[7]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
[8]https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
[9]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
[10] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Round 2
Pro
#3
My opponent has not responded according to the data that I supplied. He has, instead, decided to give a lecture on the establishment or IPCC version of climate change.
Note - That the IPCC ignores data that they don't like or disagrees with the global warming preconceived assumptions.
Lets go back in time to find the beginnings of climate change thinking.
It all started with John Ruskin's "plague wind"
Communists like Karl Marx were influenced by Ruskin, Carlyle and Disraeli.
Thus, the concept that the industrial age was a threat to the environment was born. Thus, climate change is essentially a communist system idea and a way of introducing communists ideas through the use of climate change as a clever disguise.
That leads us to Maurice Strong the person most responsible for the forming of the IPCC.
Extract -
In 2005, Strong was caught having been illicitly paid $1 million from the UN’s Oil for Food programme, supposedly set up to allow Saddam Hussein to pay in oil to feed starving Iraqis. He retired to a flat in Beijing, where he had been close to China’s Communist leaders back to Mao. It was from there that he returned home to Canada to die,on November 27.
Thus, Maurice Strong was clearly acting for the communists and their ideals.
The graph below shows that the suns energy varies in 11 year cycles which relates to aether flow blockage from large planets like Saturn and Jupiter.
This can cause an average temperature change of 0.2 degrees over a ten year period. Note - Some periods are stronger than others depending on the planets relative positions to one another in relation to the Earth. Note - More light equals more heat.
Con
#4
Carbon dioxide has no contribution to climate.
Under my round 1 argument, I provided evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, and quantified that contribution under “Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide”.
Pro drops this point.
Under my round 1 argument, I provided evidence that co2 in the atmosphere is decreasing the heat sent to space as measured by satellites as part of my “properties of carbon dioxide” section.
Pro drops this point also.
These two parts together refute the notion that co2 doesn’t contribute to climate change, as they quantify that it does indeed contribute, it specifies how much it contributes, and there are measurements showing the way it contributes (through reflectivity) is occurring in the atmosphere.
These all provide direct measurable evidence directly refute pros claims:
“Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”
“Thus, the above data shows that CO2 has zero effect on the climate”
Earth can regulate its temperature with cloud cover.
Pro asserts that cloud cover allows earth to regulate its temperature, and asserts that cloud cover has an unknown effect on the warming or cooling of the earth on models.
Firstly, as I pointed out in the first part of this round, we know for a fact that measurable reflected radiation has decreased due to carbon dioxide. As a result, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature of the planet.[1]
Secondly, pro omits a key fact: The earth is heating up, and the climate is currently changing as a result. [2]
The idea that changes in cloud cover as a means to stabilize the temperature of the earth is clearly refuted by the fact that the temperature of the earth isn’t currently being stabilized by clouds.
While It is true that we do not know exactly the overall effect of clouds on his much the world will heat up, the argument that it will not heat up is clearly refuted by the fact that the world is currently heating up.[3]
Climate change is communism / The IPCC leader was a communist
Nothing pro said here offers any argument against the scientific data I provided in the first round.
The majority of pros point is speculation and insinuation that do not appear to be warranted by the data and sources he provided.
If pro is to show conspiracy, he must show evidence and argument that the current IPCC, all climate data and science and related studies are all more likely to be fraudulent than not, and give reasons why this is the case.
Merely throwing two tangentially related peices of information, and then asserting that it proves the last 40 years of climate science, and all related data is all a hoax is absurd and should be rejected by voters.
Moreover, this is also a genetic fallacy. Even were it true that the idea that humans are harming the environment, came from communism - doesn’t render anything that has been said wrong.[4]
Sun cycles.
Firstly, the sun varies in cycles of 11 years as pro suggests. However the heating of the earth as measured over the last 100 years, and specifically the continued and rapid heat rise since 1980 clearly shows the heating does not correlate with an eleven year cycle, but has continued to rise consistently.[5]
Secondly, if the suns contribution is 0.2 degrees, then there is 3 times as much warming still to be accounted for. 0.6 degrees of warming that cannot be accounted for in terms of solar output.
Finally Pro refutes himself here again: after having said that clouds mitigate temperature rises, he now claims that temperature rises are caused by the sun and are not mitigated. How can pro say cloud cover mitigates warming but also doesn’t motivate warming? This is obviously an example of kettle logic.
Conclusions:
Pro has answered none of the points raised in my opening round, and has dropped all my arguments. I extend all of these to the next round.
Pros arguments fall afoul of basic logic, relying on assertions that are trivially refuted above.
The resolution is negated.
Sources.
[1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3AAnnual_Mean_Temperature_Change_for_Land_and_for_Ocean_NASA_GISTEMP_2017_October.png
[3]https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3AGlobal_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Under my round 1 argument, I provided evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, and quantified that contribution under “Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide”.
Pro drops this point.
Under my round 1 argument, I provided evidence that co2 in the atmosphere is decreasing the heat sent to space as measured by satellites as part of my “properties of carbon dioxide” section.
Pro drops this point also.
These two parts together refute the notion that co2 doesn’t contribute to climate change, as they quantify that it does indeed contribute, it specifies how much it contributes, and there are measurements showing the way it contributes (through reflectivity) is occurring in the atmosphere.
These all provide direct measurable evidence directly refute pros claims:
“Lab-warming” doesn’t necessarily translate to “planet-warming”
“Thus, the above data shows that CO2 has zero effect on the climate”
Earth can regulate its temperature with cloud cover.
Pro asserts that cloud cover allows earth to regulate its temperature, and asserts that cloud cover has an unknown effect on the warming or cooling of the earth on models.
Firstly, as I pointed out in the first part of this round, we know for a fact that measurable reflected radiation has decreased due to carbon dioxide. As a result, it is an indisputable fact that carbon dioxide is increasing the temperature of the planet.[1]
Secondly, pro omits a key fact: The earth is heating up, and the climate is currently changing as a result. [2]
The idea that changes in cloud cover as a means to stabilize the temperature of the earth is clearly refuted by the fact that the temperature of the earth isn’t currently being stabilized by clouds.
While It is true that we do not know exactly the overall effect of clouds on his much the world will heat up, the argument that it will not heat up is clearly refuted by the fact that the world is currently heating up.[3]
Climate change is communism / The IPCC leader was a communist
Nothing pro said here offers any argument against the scientific data I provided in the first round.
The majority of pros point is speculation and insinuation that do not appear to be warranted by the data and sources he provided.
If pro is to show conspiracy, he must show evidence and argument that the current IPCC, all climate data and science and related studies are all more likely to be fraudulent than not, and give reasons why this is the case.
Merely throwing two tangentially related peices of information, and then asserting that it proves the last 40 years of climate science, and all related data is all a hoax is absurd and should be rejected by voters.
Moreover, this is also a genetic fallacy. Even were it true that the idea that humans are harming the environment, came from communism - doesn’t render anything that has been said wrong.[4]
Sun cycles.
Firstly, the sun varies in cycles of 11 years as pro suggests. However the heating of the earth as measured over the last 100 years, and specifically the continued and rapid heat rise since 1980 clearly shows the heating does not correlate with an eleven year cycle, but has continued to rise consistently.[5]
Secondly, if the suns contribution is 0.2 degrees, then there is 3 times as much warming still to be accounted for. 0.6 degrees of warming that cannot be accounted for in terms of solar output.
Finally Pro refutes himself here again: after having said that clouds mitigate temperature rises, he now claims that temperature rises are caused by the sun and are not mitigated. How can pro say cloud cover mitigates warming but also doesn’t motivate warming? This is obviously an example of kettle logic.
Conclusions:
Pro has answered none of the points raised in my opening round, and has dropped all my arguments. I extend all of these to the next round.
Pros arguments fall afoul of basic logic, relying on assertions that are trivially refuted above.
The resolution is negated.
Sources.
[1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3AAnnual_Mean_Temperature_Change_for_Land_and_for_Ocean_NASA_GISTEMP_2017_October.png
[3]https://e360.yale.edu/features/investigating-the-enigma-of-clouds-and-climate-change
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
[5] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File%3AGlobal_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Round 3
Pro
#5
My opponent still continues to go on his own merry way without properly addressing all of my statements and references.
1. He failed to address the fact that upper and lower cloud formations have warming and cooling effects which lab and computer models are completely hopeless at trying to simulate or predict. Thus, most weather forecasters can't even predict tomorrows weather pattern without any degree of certainly. I have often looked out my window at amazement of the current weather conditions in comparison to the weather forecast by government climate agencies. There is usually quite a huge difference in actual weather to predicted weather. Thus, how can a government agency which can't accurately predict tomorrows weather, then, go on and try to predict the weather or climate in 50 or 100 years into the future? This is a total and complete nonsense which I would put in the Nostradamus pseudo idiot science category.
2. Michael Man email controversy - Copy of email below
To: ray bradley ,[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: [email protected],[email protected]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Thus, we can plainly see that climate change scientists have been caught with their pants down.
"The old graph inversion trick, yeah, that'll convince em all right, heh Phil"
Thus, we can plainly see that climate change scientists use sneaky tricks to create graphs to fool people into believing that temperatures are dramatically increasing.
My opponent has asserts many times that it is an indisputable fact that temperatures are rising according to IPCC graphs.
The email reference above clearly shows that this information is corrupted, distorted and purposely manipulated by devious individuals that call themselves scientists.
Thus, the assertion that this information is trustworthy, accurate and reliable are all false assumptions.
3. Quote - "Moreover, this is also a genetic fallacy. Even were it true that the idea that humans are harming the environment, came from communism - doesn’t render anything that has been said wrong.[4]"
Reply - Can you think of anything good that came from communism?
The communists hate and would like to destroy capitalism and industrialisation. Climate change is a sneaky way for communists to undermine and suppress industrial progress by creating carbon taxes and other disincentives which will hinder growth and progress. This is totally wrong.
4. Quote - "Secondly, if the suns contribution is 0.2 degrees, then there is 3 times as much warming still to be accounted for. 0.6 degrees of warming that cannot be accounted for in terms of solar output."
Reply - 3 times warming or 0.6 degrees Celsius increase?
Note - The solar cycle graph has 2 cycles of movement. One long term trend and one short term trend. The long term trend takes 200 years to complete one cycle. It has been increasing slowly for 200 years ever since the Dalton Minimum. My opponent is fixated with IPCC graphs and predictions.
Note - The IPCC doesn't consider that the sun exists. I have never seen or heard any reference to the existence of the sun in thousands of IPCC documents.
Thus, the IPCC is living in a fantasy world of computer models and fudged temperature readings which bears no resemblance to reality.
5. Conclusion
Quote - "Pro has answered none of the points raised in my opening round, and has dropped all my arguments. I extend all of these to the next round.
Pros arguments fall afoul of basic logic, relying on assertions that are trivially refuted above.
The resolution is negated."
Thus, we can plainly see that both my opponent and the IPCC both live in a deluded fantasy world which bears no relation to reality.
Quote "Negated" lol
Con
#6
IPCC Graphs are fakes.
Pro states the IPCC faked its data, but the data doesn’t come from IPCC. The data has been independently measured from at least 3 sources, NASA-GISS [1], NOAA[2], and HADCRUT[3] from the Uk met office. These are all independent and all broadly agree about temperature rises, and all formed part of the dataset from which the IPCC to draw conclusions.
Pro has presented no evidence that NASA, the NOAA and the met office all manufactured their data.
In addition, anecdotal evidence corroborates a warming earth. Glaciers are retreating around the globe[4], the extent of North Pole ice decreasing[5], and sea levels are rising[6]
While a graph can be faked, it’s hard to melt glaciers, or raise the sea levels around the world artificially without people noticing if it were possible at all.
Clouds.
Pro accuses me of dropping his cloud argument. This was clearly and fully addressed in round 2.
To reiterate: if it were possible for clouds to prevent warming of the planet, the the planet would not currently be warming - which it demonstrably is.
Even pro himself admits the sun contributes 0.2 degrees of warming variation. Pro can’t assert the earth isn’t warming for one argument, then assert that it is for another
Secondly, as I also pointed, we can tell co2 is decreasing the heat reflected into space, which means we can demonstrably tell the earth must be retaining more heat, and due to the spectrum we know it’s due to co2. (See round 1). This point was dropped by pro.
Both these facts refute pros claim that clouds prevent warming. As pros argument is refuted, haggling over whether high clouds, or low clouds have the most impact is largely irrelevant - as we know that whatever impact they have, is not enough to prevent warming.
This debate is whether co2 is driving global climate change, not to defend one particular climate model or another, or to defend warming estimates from one source or another. As a result, pros demands for me to justify relative warming of cloud cover are a red herring.
Climategate proves a conspiracy.
Firstly, this wasn’t the IPCC, this was a different organization, the CRU.
Secondly, it was talking about tree ring data, not global temperatures.
“Mikes trick”, was to show global temperatures on the same graph as tree ring data.
Most importantly, the decline in question was only being discussed, and was part of the scientific literature, and discussed in the IPCCs 2001 and 2007 report.[7]
The idea that the decline was being covered up whilst being publicly discussed is mostly nonsensical.
These hacked emails reflected private correspondence between colleagues, with the worst sounding examples being cherry picked.
Considering that hackers had thousands of emails and documents, that an easily explainable email is the best evidence - rather than original datasets, emails outlining actual conspiracy such as explicitly stating they were going to make up data, or referencing that conspiracy - clearly indicates pros point is wishful thinking.[8]
If this were not enough, an independent investigation found that the CRU's work had been:
Pro states the IPCC faked its data, but the data doesn’t come from IPCC. The data has been independently measured from at least 3 sources, NASA-GISS [1], NOAA[2], and HADCRUT[3] from the Uk met office. These are all independent and all broadly agree about temperature rises, and all formed part of the dataset from which the IPCC to draw conclusions.
Pro has presented no evidence that NASA, the NOAA and the met office all manufactured their data.
In addition, anecdotal evidence corroborates a warming earth. Glaciers are retreating around the globe[4], the extent of North Pole ice decreasing[5], and sea levels are rising[6]
While a graph can be faked, it’s hard to melt glaciers, or raise the sea levels around the world artificially without people noticing if it were possible at all.
Clouds.
Pro accuses me of dropping his cloud argument. This was clearly and fully addressed in round 2.
To reiterate: if it were possible for clouds to prevent warming of the planet, the the planet would not currently be warming - which it demonstrably is.
Even pro himself admits the sun contributes 0.2 degrees of warming variation. Pro can’t assert the earth isn’t warming for one argument, then assert that it is for another
Secondly, as I also pointed, we can tell co2 is decreasing the heat reflected into space, which means we can demonstrably tell the earth must be retaining more heat, and due to the spectrum we know it’s due to co2. (See round 1). This point was dropped by pro.
Both these facts refute pros claim that clouds prevent warming. As pros argument is refuted, haggling over whether high clouds, or low clouds have the most impact is largely irrelevant - as we know that whatever impact they have, is not enough to prevent warming.
This debate is whether co2 is driving global climate change, not to defend one particular climate model or another, or to defend warming estimates from one source or another. As a result, pros demands for me to justify relative warming of cloud cover are a red herring.
Climategate proves a conspiracy.
Firstly, this wasn’t the IPCC, this was a different organization, the CRU.
Secondly, it was talking about tree ring data, not global temperatures.
“Mikes trick”, was to show global temperatures on the same graph as tree ring data.
Most importantly, the decline in question was only being discussed, and was part of the scientific literature, and discussed in the IPCCs 2001 and 2007 report.[7]
The idea that the decline was being covered up whilst being publicly discussed is mostly nonsensical.
These hacked emails reflected private correspondence between colleagues, with the worst sounding examples being cherry picked.
Considering that hackers had thousands of emails and documents, that an easily explainable email is the best evidence - rather than original datasets, emails outlining actual conspiracy such as explicitly stating they were going to make up data, or referencing that conspiracy - clearly indicates pros point is wishful thinking.[8]
If this were not enough, an independent investigation found that the CRU's work had been:
"carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible”[8]
This means the accusation is a matter of perception only, not fact.
Climate change is a communist conspiracy.
Pro continues to assert, without any evidence, that climate change is a communist plot.
As discussed pro does not offer any real support for this claim for me to refute. Thus it should be rejected.
Solar cycles.
Pro says the sub accounts for 0.2 degrees of warming. The earth has warmed by 0.8 degrees (see sources above), meaning 3 times the suns contribution to warming (0.2 x 3 = 0.6) remains to be accounted for.
The sun is on a 200 year cycle.
Pro blamed the warming that he claimed doesn’t exist on an 11 year solar cycle. When this was refuted he now blames the warming he claims doesn’t exist on a 200 year cycle he provides no evidence for.
Pro needs to make up his mind whether the warming patterns exist or not, he can’t argue both sides.
There is no evidence of a 200 year cycle in sunspots since the dalton minimum, even if there were, as the dalton minimum was a low temperature period, a 200 year cycle means we should current be the coldest point.[9]
The IPCC doesn’t account for the sun.
Pro argues that the IPCC pretends that sun doesn’t exist.
Pro didn’t even bother to google “IPCC Sun”, as if he had it would have shown multiple resources and links to reports that analyze the suns impact.
The first 4 links are from the 4th annual report, which factors associated with the sun was mentioned in detail in 4 different chapters:
Drops and conclusion.
Pro argues that warming both does and does not exist. Claiming both that clouds prevent any warming, and that the warming is down to the sun. This is clearly incoherent.
Pro drops the majority of the scientific basis presented from round 1, including evidence to support the role of co2 in the climate. I extend these across the board.
Pro drops my refutation of logarithmic carbon heating.
Pro drops my refutation of clouds mitigating climate change
In fact, pro seems to simply be throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, countering the well evidenced facts I’m providing with mostly insinuations and unevidenced assertions - this is not how debate works.
Pro must provide substantial evidence that the IPCC and multiple other organizations are lying and manufacturing all evidence. Once can not simply assert this is the case on flimsy links.
The evidence and argument provided clearly shows that co2 is driving climate change and has not been addressed by pro.
As a result, the resolution of this debate is clearly negated.
[1]
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
[2]
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201704
[3]
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/
[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
[7]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
[8]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASunspot_Numbers.png
[10]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
[11]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf
[12]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter6-1.pdf
[13]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf
Pro continues to assert, without any evidence, that climate change is a communist plot.
As discussed pro does not offer any real support for this claim for me to refute. Thus it should be rejected.
Solar cycles.
Pro says the sub accounts for 0.2 degrees of warming. The earth has warmed by 0.8 degrees (see sources above), meaning 3 times the suns contribution to warming (0.2 x 3 = 0.6) remains to be accounted for.
The sun is on a 200 year cycle.
Pro blamed the warming that he claimed doesn’t exist on an 11 year solar cycle. When this was refuted he now blames the warming he claims doesn’t exist on a 200 year cycle he provides no evidence for.
Pro needs to make up his mind whether the warming patterns exist or not, he can’t argue both sides.
There is no evidence of a 200 year cycle in sunspots since the dalton minimum, even if there were, as the dalton minimum was a low temperature period, a 200 year cycle means we should current be the coldest point.[9]
The IPCC doesn’t account for the sun.
Pro argues that the IPCC pretends that sun doesn’t exist.
Pro didn’t even bother to google “IPCC Sun”, as if he had it would have shown multiple resources and links to reports that analyze the suns impact.
The first 4 links are from the 4th annual report, which factors associated with the sun was mentioned in detail in 4 different chapters:
- 1.4.3 “Solar variability and total solar irradiance”[10]
- 2.7.1.1 “direct observations of solar irradiance”[11]
- 6.6.3.1 “Solar forcing” [12]
- 9.3.3.2 “role of volcanism and solar irradiance”[13]
Drops and conclusion.
Pro argues that warming both does and does not exist. Claiming both that clouds prevent any warming, and that the warming is down to the sun. This is clearly incoherent.
Pro drops the majority of the scientific basis presented from round 1, including evidence to support the role of co2 in the climate. I extend these across the board.
Pro drops my refutation of logarithmic carbon heating.
Pro drops my refutation of clouds mitigating climate change
In fact, pro seems to simply be throwing things at the wall to see what sticks, countering the well evidenced facts I’m providing with mostly insinuations and unevidenced assertions - this is not how debate works.
Pro must provide substantial evidence that the IPCC and multiple other organizations are lying and manufacturing all evidence. Once can not simply assert this is the case on flimsy links.
The evidence and argument provided clearly shows that co2 is driving climate change and has not been addressed by pro.
As a result, the resolution of this debate is clearly negated.
[1]
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
[2]
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201704
[3]
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/
[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline
[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
[7]
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
[8]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle#/media/File%3ASunspot_Numbers.png
[10]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
[11]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf
[12]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter6-1.pdf
[13]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter9-1.pdf
Round 4
Pro
#7
1. Con states that "climate data doesn't come from IPCC". It comes from 3 different sources which the IPCC then collates and filters and "draws conclusions."
Really Con. That's informative. So you just said NOTHING in other words because the IPCC has the FINAL SAY and the other organisations don't.
2. Con is now using "anecdotal evidence" of glaciers retreating, North Pole shrinking and sea levels rising. Well, Con. I am glad its only 'anecdotal' otherwise I might have to take it seriously! lol
(a) Con, glaciers have been retreating since the Ice Age. Wake up to it!
(b) North Pole shrinking! Really?
Well it looks like all the ice must have gone south. lol
The Antarctic is increasing its ice by 112 billion tons per year.
Note - Industrial soot (not CO2) from European industry landing on ice in the North Pole would attract heat and melt ice faster. What? The scientists in the IPCC, NOAA and NASA-GISS didn't think of that? I think we should all ask for our money back for the billions of dollars of climate change research.
(c) Sea levels rising?
Hmmm???? It looks like Japan must have got an exemption notice from the IPCC because they haven't had any sea level rises. lol
3. IPCC future claims that didn't come true -
The Claim: 50 million climate refugees will be produced by climate change by the year 2010. Especially hard hit will be river delta areas, and low lying islands in the Caribbean and Pacific. The UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: …it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010.
The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
The Test: Did population go down in these areas during that period, indicating climate refugees were on the move? The answer, no.
More lies from an organisation that Con says is TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE and COMPETENT.
4. Clouds can cool Earth issue.
Con tries to navigate around this issue by restating that his temperature graphs are not lies. Thus, Con uses one lie to hide another lie.
Note - The house of cards is getting higher and higher Con.
Quote - "Pros demands for me to justify relative warming by cloud cover is a red herring" (grammar corrected version)
No Con, they are clear evidence that the climate change model is illogical nonsense.
5.Quote -
- There is no evidence of a 200 year cycle in sunspots since the dalton minimum, even if there were, as the dalton minimum was a low temperature period, a 200 year cycle means we should current be the coldest point.[9]
I have given Con a reference graph in the last post. Con didn't open his eyes and look at the graph provided.
The graph clearly shows that the sun's activity has slowly increased since the Dalton Minimum. This would account for any change in climate so you don't have to look for a cause like CO2 when the answer is already staring you in the face. Being a smarty pants. Con will say that I am agreeing that there has been a temperature increase. Well, the glaciers don't lie Con. But the IPCC does. That's all I am saying.
6.Pro didn’t even bother to google “IPCC Sun”, as if he had it would have shown multiple resources and links to reports that analyze the suns impact.The first 4 links are from the 4th annual report, which factors associated with the sun was mentioned in detail in 4 different chapters:
- 1.4.3 “Solar variability and total solar irradiance”[10]
- 2.7.1.1 “direct observations of solar irradiance”[11]
- 6.6.3.1 “Solar forcing” [12]
- 9.3.3.2 “role of volcanism and solar irradiance”[13]
I checked all references. No page found. There are no such documents. I have looked many times and never found any.
Yet another fraud exposed.
Conclusion
Con relies on flimsy evidence produced by shonky organisations which make huge profits by scamming people with bogus disaster information which never eventuates.
Con
#8
Clouds don’t prevent warming - as the earth is warming
Data: Pros assertions that the IPCC were making up data was refuted by the fact that the IPCC takes its data from 3 independent sources. This was dropped by pro.
Glaciers: Glaciers retreat because of warming. Pro states that they have been retreating since the last ice age. Yes - this is because the earth has been warming since the last ice age, with most of the warming occurring in the last 30-40 years. Ironically pro let’s slip here that was a last ice age: How come the earth has warmed from an ice age if clouds prevent warming from occurring?
Sea level: Japan’s sea level has been rising since the 1980s[1], it’s primarily just the long term trend of sea level for japan is unknown. This data has been discussed by the IPCC, which raises the question: if the IPCC suppress and invents data: why did they not suppress this?
Now, while Japan’s past tides have been higher, this is not true of the UK[2], the US and canada[3], australia[4] and South Africa[5]. What pro is doing here is called cherry picking, where he picks tide data that supports his position, and ignores the ones that don’t.
Arctic retreat. Some ice melt can be attributed to soot in the atmosphere, but not all. Pro should provide evidence that all ice melt is being caused by soot, otherwise this should be rejected as an assertion.[6]
Antarctic retreat: Pro again conveniently cherry picks one study that analyzed data up to 2008. Other studies that don’t adjust for the height of the land in the same way don’t give the same answers: meaning that we’re not even certain what the study said is even true.[7], even so: it seems that even that is not true any more, as the current massive ice melt that is occurring is exceeding the additional snow fall produced by the warmer weather.[8]
More importantly, as before: if all the real data is being suppressed, and only fake data is being reported: why did NASA allow this data to be released? This, together with all pros other data completely refute pros narrative that there is a conspiracy.
UN got estimates of climate refugees wrong.
The estimates of people displaced by climate and weather related events were “up to 50m” by 2010. The real number was approximately 22.5m as of 2015, with millions more internally displaced, or temporarily displaced by flooding and natural weather disasters.[9]
Not a single person will disagree that forecasting and prediction are not 100% accurate, and pro produces no argument or justification as to why he feels that the UN not accurately predicting refugee numbers demonstrates that co2 doesn’t cause climate change.
This point should be ignored as irrelevant.
Conspiracy theories
Pro Drops his argument and my rebuttal concerning the climategate emails. He drops his argument regarding a communist conspiracy, and neglects to continue to provide any information or evidence.
Cloud cover.
Again - pro switches from arguing that the earth is warming, to claiming it cant warm due to clouds. Which is it?
As pro himself agrees that the earth is warming in his previous rounds, and this one where he admits glaciers are retreating since the ice age, and where he blames warming on solar cycles - pro himself refutes the argument that clouds prevent the earth from warming.
As such, even if it is unknown the specific and exact contribution clouds make, by virtue of the fact that the earth has definitively been warming - that even pro agrees with when it suits him - it demonstrates that clouds can not prevent warming.
Pro simply demands I answer a question that is irrelevant, and drops my argument for why it is irrelevant.
Dalton minimum.
Again, pro now goes from asserting there is no warming at all, to now arguing that the warming that doesn’t exist is caused by solar activity.
Pro argues there is a 200 year cycle of solar activity. Pro has no evidence that such a cycle exists. The image provided in the last round, and by pro this round shows a total of 400 years of solar activity. There is obviously no discernible cycle in the 200 years before the dalton minimum, and yet pro asserts a repeating pattern.
It is illogical for pro to assert there’s a 200 year cycle when there’s is not even a full completed cycle evidenced in the data.
Even so, what pro completely ignores is that while he is fixating on number of sun spots, he’s ignoring that we can measure fairly exactly the amount of heat that is received from solar activity, and we can use that to determine how much heating that would produce.
It accounts for - at best 0.1-0.2 degrees of the observed warming since 1970, leaving 0.7 degrees unaccounted for. Pro dropped this when it was raised before.[10]
Bad links.
Pro claims the links I provided didn’t work, i invite voters to simply click on the link below:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
Pro clearly didn’t bother to even open the link before trying to argue that the link didn’t exist. This means pro simply ignores the whole argument. I extend.
The IPCC is a scam to make huge profits.
The IPCC, the met office, NASA, and most climate research are government or non-profit organizations. There’s no goods or services sold, and no shareholders to generate profits for - so that the idea that these groups are attempting to take in “huge profits” is largely nonsensical.
Conclusion:
Pros has dropped multiple points in the last four rounds, and continues to do so; including the entirety of my first round where I provided evidence that clearly shows the impact of co2 on climate, and I extend all these arguments for a third time.
Pro continues to change his story, drop his previous claims, and is simply throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
Pro has confused the IPCC with other organizations, claimed the IPCC fakes its data when it agrees with me, yet the data is acceptable and valid when he feels it suits him.
Pro has also repeatedly switched between arguing the earth is warming and that it isn’t.
As a result, the science, evidence and logic clearly refute his position, and you must vote for con.
Sources:
[1]https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/sl_trend/sea_level_around_japan.html
[2]https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends
[3]https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
[4]https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
[5]http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532007000600017
[6]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/
[7]https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
[8]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/05/16/is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice-nature-may-have-settled-the-debate/
[9]https://www.unhcr.org/climate-change-and-disasters.html
[10]https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=58
Data: Pros assertions that the IPCC were making up data was refuted by the fact that the IPCC takes its data from 3 independent sources. This was dropped by pro.
Glaciers: Glaciers retreat because of warming. Pro states that they have been retreating since the last ice age. Yes - this is because the earth has been warming since the last ice age, with most of the warming occurring in the last 30-40 years. Ironically pro let’s slip here that was a last ice age: How come the earth has warmed from an ice age if clouds prevent warming from occurring?
Sea level: Japan’s sea level has been rising since the 1980s[1], it’s primarily just the long term trend of sea level for japan is unknown. This data has been discussed by the IPCC, which raises the question: if the IPCC suppress and invents data: why did they not suppress this?
Now, while Japan’s past tides have been higher, this is not true of the UK[2], the US and canada[3], australia[4] and South Africa[5]. What pro is doing here is called cherry picking, where he picks tide data that supports his position, and ignores the ones that don’t.
Arctic retreat. Some ice melt can be attributed to soot in the atmosphere, but not all. Pro should provide evidence that all ice melt is being caused by soot, otherwise this should be rejected as an assertion.[6]
Antarctic retreat: Pro again conveniently cherry picks one study that analyzed data up to 2008. Other studies that don’t adjust for the height of the land in the same way don’t give the same answers: meaning that we’re not even certain what the study said is even true.[7], even so: it seems that even that is not true any more, as the current massive ice melt that is occurring is exceeding the additional snow fall produced by the warmer weather.[8]
More importantly, as before: if all the real data is being suppressed, and only fake data is being reported: why did NASA allow this data to be released? This, together with all pros other data completely refute pros narrative that there is a conspiracy.
UN got estimates of climate refugees wrong.
The estimates of people displaced by climate and weather related events were “up to 50m” by 2010. The real number was approximately 22.5m as of 2015, with millions more internally displaced, or temporarily displaced by flooding and natural weather disasters.[9]
Not a single person will disagree that forecasting and prediction are not 100% accurate, and pro produces no argument or justification as to why he feels that the UN not accurately predicting refugee numbers demonstrates that co2 doesn’t cause climate change.
This point should be ignored as irrelevant.
Conspiracy theories
Pro Drops his argument and my rebuttal concerning the climategate emails. He drops his argument regarding a communist conspiracy, and neglects to continue to provide any information or evidence.
Cloud cover.
Again - pro switches from arguing that the earth is warming, to claiming it cant warm due to clouds. Which is it?
As pro himself agrees that the earth is warming in his previous rounds, and this one where he admits glaciers are retreating since the ice age, and where he blames warming on solar cycles - pro himself refutes the argument that clouds prevent the earth from warming.
As such, even if it is unknown the specific and exact contribution clouds make, by virtue of the fact that the earth has definitively been warming - that even pro agrees with when it suits him - it demonstrates that clouds can not prevent warming.
Pro simply demands I answer a question that is irrelevant, and drops my argument for why it is irrelevant.
Dalton minimum.
Again, pro now goes from asserting there is no warming at all, to now arguing that the warming that doesn’t exist is caused by solar activity.
Pro argues there is a 200 year cycle of solar activity. Pro has no evidence that such a cycle exists. The image provided in the last round, and by pro this round shows a total of 400 years of solar activity. There is obviously no discernible cycle in the 200 years before the dalton minimum, and yet pro asserts a repeating pattern.
It is illogical for pro to assert there’s a 200 year cycle when there’s is not even a full completed cycle evidenced in the data.
Even so, what pro completely ignores is that while he is fixating on number of sun spots, he’s ignoring that we can measure fairly exactly the amount of heat that is received from solar activity, and we can use that to determine how much heating that would produce.
It accounts for - at best 0.1-0.2 degrees of the observed warming since 1970, leaving 0.7 degrees unaccounted for. Pro dropped this when it was raised before.[10]
Bad links.
Pro claims the links I provided didn’t work, i invite voters to simply click on the link below:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf
Pro clearly didn’t bother to even open the link before trying to argue that the link didn’t exist. This means pro simply ignores the whole argument. I extend.
The IPCC is a scam to make huge profits.
The IPCC, the met office, NASA, and most climate research are government or non-profit organizations. There’s no goods or services sold, and no shareholders to generate profits for - so that the idea that these groups are attempting to take in “huge profits” is largely nonsensical.
Conclusion:
Pros has dropped multiple points in the last four rounds, and continues to do so; including the entirety of my first round where I provided evidence that clearly shows the impact of co2 on climate, and I extend all these arguments for a third time.
Pro continues to change his story, drop his previous claims, and is simply throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
Pro has confused the IPCC with other organizations, claimed the IPCC fakes its data when it agrees with me, yet the data is acceptable and valid when he feels it suits him.
Pro has also repeatedly switched between arguing the earth is warming and that it isn’t.
As a result, the science, evidence and logic clearly refute his position, and you must vote for con.
Sources:
[1]https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/sl_trend/sea_level_around_japan.html
[2]https://www.ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends
[3]https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
[4]https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140
[5]http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532007000600017
[6]https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/
[7]https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
[8]http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/05/16/is-antarctica-gaining-or-losing-ice-nature-may-have-settled-the-debate/
[9]https://www.unhcr.org/climate-change-and-disasters.html
[10]https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=58
Round 5
Pro
#9
1. Growing glaciers
Plenty of glaciers are growing not shrinking.
2. Global plan to manipulate people with carbon taxes.
Delingpole was among the leading journalists who reported the Climategate scandal, in which he analyzed e-mails among leading climate scientists that had been hacked and posted on the web. What he discovered was a pattern of purposeful and coordinated efforts to:
- Manipulate the data supporting the claims of a sudden and dangerous increase in the earth's temperature;
- Not disclose private doubts about whether the world was actually heating up;
- Suppress evidence that contradicted the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW);
- Disguise the facts around the Medieval Warm Period, when the earth was warmer that it is today;
- Suppress opposition by squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
3. Sea levels not rising?
If there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
4. CO2 properties.
CO2 has similar properties as glass. That is, glass only reflects infra red light up to a certain thickness and then it is ineffective after the saturation point is reached.
Your response was inadequate because you didn't logically explain why this isn't the case. Merely stating that the temperatures have risen, therefore, CO2 is to blame isn't adequate or sufficient.
5. The Earth has been warmer previously.
This proves that humans have nothing to do with warming or cooling. These things happen of their own accord whether humans are present or not present.
Imagine if the sun just suddenly disappeared. The earth would quickly turn into a block of ice as cold as Pluto. Thus, the sun is 100% in control of Earth's climate and nothing else matters. The amount of influence that CO2 has on Earth's global temperature would be so small that it wouldn't be worth trying to measure. Probably less than one billionth of a degree Celsius. Get over it. Its really just a game of politics and control/restriction of important commodities like oil, coal and gas.
6. Seas rising nonsense.
One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
Note - It only takes one anomaly to disprove any theory. This reference has dozens of anomalies. lol
7. Displacement of 50 million people by 2010 due to oceans rising.
Con didn't find many displaced people unfortunately. He could only find 22.5 million by 2015. Sorry Con, you are late by 5 years and short by more than 50% of your gestimate. lol
Too bad you didn't read the fine details of your own reference Con. The land actually subsided, so therefore the seas couldn't rise unfortunately. That's what happens when you live on the Ring Of Fire.
Oh well, you can't win every debate can you! lol
Better luck next time! lol
Con
#10
Glacial retreat.
As shown in my previous rounds, glaciers around the world are losing volume, pro dismissed this as not being down to carbon dioxide: but Pro conceded that it was due to warming.
Pro now changes his argument, and says that that glaciers are not really retreating. The evidence provided clearly shows the substantial and rapid retreat of thousands of glaciers around all parts of the world.[1]
Pro is cherry picking a half dozen examples of glaciers from a single year - and ignoring the overarching and broad pattern of glacial retreat and asserting these half dozen examples justifies rejecting the idea. Even the primary example of Greenland is incorrect, with simply less melt than expected - not a lack of melt.[2]
Climate gate/Conspiracy
Pro engages in a Gish Gallop, throwing out half a dozen points about conspiracy without justification, argument or additional details - simply throwing out the claim (as he has been doing throughout), and expecting his opponent to expend energy, effort and word count to refute it in detail.
These claims all come from a famous climate change skeptic - as pro simply asserted his claims are correct, and they are so broad and all encompassing that it is not realistically possible for me to refute them all - I will simply link a rebuttal link:
https://climatefeedback.org/authors/james-delingpole/
And assert that these rebuttals are correct.
However, much of the specific article linked by pro is that there is a conspiracy based on climategate emails.
This was already refuted in round 3: and it was also pointed out that there was a full investigation into the individual group.
This was dropped by pro.
As the issue of climategate was refuted in round 3, and the refutation simply dropped by pro. I simply extend those arguments here.
Sea level rise.
Pro provides links to Japanese tidal gauges, and used this as evidence that the sea level is not rising,.
I produced links to British, South African, Australian, USA and Canada tidal gauges that show this sea level is rising.
Pro cherry picked data that agrees with him, and ignoring the broad wealth of data that disagrees with him.
Pro drops this point.
Pro also ignores that even that tidal gauge data shows Japanese sea level has been rising since 1980. It is not the case that the sea level is not rising in Japan, it is that there was an unexplained drop in sea level prior to 1980.
Pro drops that point to.
In addition, NASA satellite data indicates a broad sea level rise, multiple independent tidal gauge data sets - including the Japanese tidal gauges that pro himself sites - indicates the sea level is rising.[3]
Pro must provide a rebuttal to this data from multiple independent sources over different parts of the world. Pro simply appeals to authority asking everyone to ignore away actual data and evidence - and believe the expert that agrees with him.
Even so, the expert himself has been largely refuted and described as a “serial promoter of his nonsense” [4] and, hilariously:
As shown in my previous rounds, glaciers around the world are losing volume, pro dismissed this as not being down to carbon dioxide: but Pro conceded that it was due to warming.
Pro now changes his argument, and says that that glaciers are not really retreating. The evidence provided clearly shows the substantial and rapid retreat of thousands of glaciers around all parts of the world.[1]
Pro is cherry picking a half dozen examples of glaciers from a single year - and ignoring the overarching and broad pattern of glacial retreat and asserting these half dozen examples justifies rejecting the idea. Even the primary example of Greenland is incorrect, with simply less melt than expected - not a lack of melt.[2]
Climate gate/Conspiracy
Pro engages in a Gish Gallop, throwing out half a dozen points about conspiracy without justification, argument or additional details - simply throwing out the claim (as he has been doing throughout), and expecting his opponent to expend energy, effort and word count to refute it in detail.
These claims all come from a famous climate change skeptic - as pro simply asserted his claims are correct, and they are so broad and all encompassing that it is not realistically possible for me to refute them all - I will simply link a rebuttal link:
https://climatefeedback.org/authors/james-delingpole/
And assert that these rebuttals are correct.
However, much of the specific article linked by pro is that there is a conspiracy based on climategate emails.
This was already refuted in round 3: and it was also pointed out that there was a full investigation into the individual group.
This was dropped by pro.
As the issue of climategate was refuted in round 3, and the refutation simply dropped by pro. I simply extend those arguments here.
Sea level rise.
Pro provides links to Japanese tidal gauges, and used this as evidence that the sea level is not rising,.
I produced links to British, South African, Australian, USA and Canada tidal gauges that show this sea level is rising.
Pro cherry picked data that agrees with him, and ignoring the broad wealth of data that disagrees with him.
Pro drops this point.
Pro also ignores that even that tidal gauge data shows Japanese sea level has been rising since 1980. It is not the case that the sea level is not rising in Japan, it is that there was an unexplained drop in sea level prior to 1980.
Pro drops that point to.
In addition, NASA satellite data indicates a broad sea level rise, multiple independent tidal gauge data sets - including the Japanese tidal gauges that pro himself sites - indicates the sea level is rising.[3]
Pro must provide a rebuttal to this data from multiple independent sources over different parts of the world. Pro simply appeals to authority asking everyone to ignore away actual data and evidence - and believe the expert that agrees with him.
Even so, the expert himself has been largely refuted and described as a “serial promoter of his nonsense” [4] and, hilariously:
“and among his claims to fame are that he possesses paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod, and that he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" in Sweden”[4]
So in this case, pros source is hardly credible.
Saying this, if pro believes simply citing a scientist that agrees with his position is sufficient to prove his point, then:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
This is a detailed list of multiple science organizations, academies, groups and agencies who have all concluded co2 produces climate change.
Carbon dioxide ineffective.
I should refer pro back to the opening round where I demonstrate the impact of carbon dioxide on heating. Pros complaint was covered in detail there:
Pro asserts that co2 has no effective about a given concentration. This is not true, as I explained in detail in round 1, the relationship is not linear, so a doubling of co2 produces a specific amount of heating, but the effect is substantial - and evidence was provided to that effect.
Pro dropped this point despite it being pointed out over multiple rounds, and now simply reasserts that initial conclusion.
In addition, it was also demonstrated through the analysis of heat reflected from the earth, that co2 is indeed absorbing more of the radiant heat coming our from the earth.
Pro dropped this point also.
The earth has been warmer in the last
Yes. The concentration of co2 has also been far higher (3000 ppm), and the sun has also been much less strong in the past.
This is completely consistent with the idea that co2 produces a warming effect.[5] In this case that co2 in the past had a more significant warming effect which kept temperatures higher, even when considering a lower solar output.
Pro then asserts that carbon dioxide has a negligible effect on climate. Pro cannot simply assert this without evidence - as the only two arguments he’s provided to support this claim have been roundly refuted.
Summary.
In the opening round, detailed analysis and evidence was provided about the physical properties of carbon dioxide, and the measurable impact it has on the climate.
This involved providing evidence from multiple sources.
Pro has not challenged the science here, other than the single false assertion that carbon dioxide cannot impact heating which had already been fully refuted in the opening round.
Pro made a never-ending series of claims in this debate which he either dropped or didn’t bother to defend.
He claimed the suns 11 year cycle was responsible for warming, then that there was no warming, and the that it was actually a 200 year sun cycle that produced the warming he claimed didn’t exist.
Each one of these issues he’s raised has been systematically dismantled in the rounds above, only to have been dropped and ignored.
Pro makes claims of conspiracy. He confuses NASA with the IPCC and the met office, and the NOAA, asserts that it’s a communist plot without any rationale or evidence, he’s cited climategate, a completely different organization that isn’t the IPCC who’s research has been broadly vindicated by investigations. He’s cited two highly dubious individuals when trying to support his conspiracy.
Pro cherry picks data that he feels agrees with him, then claims the research is suppressed, and conflicting data is ignored - repeatedly cites studies, and data sets such as the climategate tree rings, Greenland ice sheet data, an Antarctica study, sun spot data, data on the effect of cloud cover, sea levels of Japan that I showed were either outlined and discussed at length by both IPCC or generated by the very organizations pro claims is inventing data and suppressing inconvenient data.
This is clearly absurd, and fundamentally undermines pros claims of conspiracy.
If that were not bad enough, pro intersperses his claims that the earth is warming for different reasons with his claims that the earth is not warming.
He blames the sun and a recovery from the last ice age as reasons for warming - then asserts that clouds prevent any warming from occurring.
This is again, patently absurd.
The remainder of this debate has consisted with pro dismissing data he doesn’t like as faked, cherry picking data and studies that agree with him and systematically ignoring the majority of points that have been raised.
There is no other rational position than a vote for con in this debate.
Sources:
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
[2]https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-in-2018
[3]https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level/
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/dec/02/spectator-sea-level-claims
[5]https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
The lack of organization makes this a difficult debate to evaluate. I'll fault Pro as instigator for lack of framework or overarching thesis: more of a collage of climate change critique then a structured argument. I'll read " the above data shows that CO2 has zero effect on the climate and that if there was any change, then cloud cover would compensate for this change and reduce temperatures back to normal," to be as close to topic as we get. Problem is that there is no data above, just a quote from a blog by some Australian TV personality and even her blog undermines Pro's absolutism. Pro's one source says, "Here’s why it’s possible that doubling CO2 won’t make much difference" AND "It’s true that carbon has some warming effect, but it’s also true that extra carbon doesn’t have the same effect" AND " each extra molecule of carbon makes a little difference, but it becomes less and less so, and there’s a point where it’s irrelevant." Pro's one source confirms that CO2 causes some climate change, which burns down Pro's single argument. In the absence of any framework and because Pro is making claim contrary to popular, conventional understanding, BOP is Pro's. However, Con proceeds as though BOP is shared and gives us a short, dull walk thru. Pro's R2 arguments are in no way relevant to CO2 or Con's R1. Con correctly calls foul. Pro's R3 still has no CO2- just a critique of weather forecasting in general and some tangential conspiracy theories. Con works up some counter-arguments but we are so far afield from topic that there's little point to discussion. By R4, Pro is at least making an effort to refute Con but there's still not much CO2- essentially Pro seems to imply that if cloud cover or solar cycles might contribute to temperature increase, then carbon dioxide must not contribute. Pro vacillates between denying climate impacts and denying carbon's role. Refuting Con's citation of the IPCC 4th report, Pro states there is no such document....astonishing. By R5, Pro seems to be developing several reasonable counters against IPCC Climate Change forecasting but the original assertion regarding carbon is blurred. Arguing that carbon's contribution to warming diminishes after saturation is in effect arguing that carbon makes some contribution, disproving Pro's apparent thesis. Arguments to Con- he did an adequate job of parrying Pro's unfocused jabs. Sources to con as well- Pro's sources were more blog than peer-reviewed science, several sources contradicted Pro's thesis, and Pro couldn't find the IPCC 4 report in a climate change debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's opening argument was a non-sequitur, given that if CO2 caused nothing but clouds, that would be climate change: Which was easily outweighed by con's evidence such as Nasa.giv explaining all about CO2 causing heat with long term effects on the climate. Pro then ignored the counter case (leaving it unrefuted), to offer conspiracies, and complaints about his case being ignored (while ignoring cons... multiple rounds of this repeated).
There are just too many dropped proofs to take pro seriously on this debate, not the mention the number of times con caught him disagreeing with himself. ... Pro, next time I suggest arguing just one of the conspiracy theories related to this, until you have the skill toe argue such a profound conclusion.
To ramshutu
You had entered the data in good faith that it was all about rising sea levels. If it was about droughts and wars, then the data is fraudulent.
“average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008”
After this there is a “Full stop”, or “Period”, which indicates the next sentence is separate from this one. It is not saying that earthquakes are climate related disasters. The second sentence is talking about big disasters in general, not solely climate related disasters.
Still telling even more lies? lol
Quote round 4 Ref 9
In photos: Climate change, disasters and displacement
01 January 2015
Since 2009, an estimated one person every second has been displaced by a disaster, with an average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008 (IDMC 2015). Disasters and slow onsets, such as droughts in Somalia in 2011 and 2012, floods in Pakistan between 2010 and 2012, and the earthquake in Nepal in 2015, can leave huge numbers of people traumatized without shelter, clean water and basic supplies.
The source didn’t say that.
Environmentalist lying scum bags 1 - Humanity and truth - 0. lol
I clearly proved that con had lied in round 4 by his quoting that "20 million people were displaced by rising seas". This claim was fraudulent because his own reference stated that the displacement was caused by land subsidence and not by rising seas. That proves that con doesn't read his own references and that con is just a bare faced liar. By voting for con, you have joined the scum bag parade of liars and of which includes Maurice Strong who spent his last days hiding in China trying to avoid accusations of embezzlement and fraud.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************
Hi Somebody- strange conversing with somebody who has blocked me. You didn't respond to my request for debate topic. Let me know when you're ready. You'll get no arg from me re: my logic which is often faulty- I am here to learn. My point regarding IPCC report was that whether the link was broken or not, anybody arguing climate change should be familiar with IPCC4 and how to find a copy. If we were arguing re: the nature of the holy trinity and I cited John 23- I'd expect you to find that cite, link or no link. Saying you can't find it suggests a lack of familiarity with the primary document- one third of the reason I docked you one point on sources. I agree that Round 5 was your best round. The problem was you started the debate suggesting a focus on CO2 and ended with a general critique on IPCC. I think everybody would have enjoyed an "IPCC is a Socialist tool" thesis better and if you had focused on that from the start I think you might have fared far better. Happy President's Day!
Click the link. Seriously. Just click the link. The link works. The link I placed in the sources works. Click on the link, it takes you to the IPCC climate change PDF.
Simply saying it doesn’t work when it does, is insanity.
Pro couldn't find the data supplied by con because the link was FAULTY stupid. Read the debate with your eyes open next time. lol
Note - Its your comment that is messy. The debate was well structured and logical. Whereas, your assessment of the debate was illogical, biased, confused, faulty and messy.
I proved that con was a fraud in round 5. Thus, you can't vote for a fraud. Hint for people with low IQs - (He used false information as does the IPCC.)
Not a problem
TBH it was merely a test vote to see if I could vote
oops- I've been blocked by somebody but I'm sure he'll read this here:
sorry to vote against your terrible piffle, somebody. So your comment is what? outing me with the shit I wrote on my own profile last week? Your comment, like your debate, is fairly fuzzy regarding intent. Hey, tho- If you want to debate somebody I'm happy to oblige- maybe something with less fact & figures this time. I love conspiracy theories and if you think the IPCC is a commie plot I bet u got a million of em. do you have a favorite false flag op? Jade Helm? something like that? Hope so. and hey, man- Happy Valentine's Day.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4mztkndHk
Quote from your biography - "Likes dungeons and Dragons and play mafia". Thus you are an "F" wit. and you hate Trump. Thus, you are a left wing communist deviate and 'climate changer' and useless bludger on society. Your comment is just an irrational nonsense hysterical reaction to your fanatical and religious like beliefs.
I thought that maybe what you meant, I appreciate you taking the time, and appreciate the feedback.
I wouldn't worry about it, Ram. I'm not critiquing your style. I only meant that there wasn't much new here to interest somebody's who's read a few climate change debates. Given the circumstances, I don't think you had much a venue for new args or insights and having read a few of your forum posts I have no doubt of your capacity to deliver an interesting argument.
That would be a shame. Not enough climate change skeptics on this site for my taste. I like to champion the IPCC myself and there aren't enough opponents.
Thanks for taking your time to vote, I noticed that you said the walk through was dull, if you have any specific feedback on an area to improve there, I’d welcome (unless it was just a turn of phrase!)
Vote reported: Death23 // Mod action: removed
Votes: All points tied
RFD: 1234567890
Reason for mod removal: Tied votes without RFDs are removed. To award a tie on a debate that is neither FF nor when they agree on a tie, the voter still needs to evaluate the arguments at minimum.
I beg to differ, it’s hilarious.
Drop it, its not funny.
At least he isn’t using the word “dropped”.
Because that would be rude!
Yet still, even after quoting the exact words, you are still far, far away from reality. You have to prove that I said that CO2, quote "caused" clouds. Never stated. Only in your sick and demented juvenile mind.
Note: my previous reply was posted 43 seconds after the libel. I had not seen it. ... It is itself evidence of a YYW level mental failing (a user on another site, whom because I wouldn't trade votes with, he used this very tactic for awhile resulting in a restraining order). For obvious reasons, I shall not be interacting with him further.
Interesting perspective, given your final sentence of R1: "...then this would be countered by cloud cover which would effectively cancel out this extra warming."
Copy of an email sent from ramsutu to ragnar. (from Debategate scam.com)
"Hey rags, don't forgot to vote for me tomorrow. I have set up the same old scam of adding the word "dropped" at every possible occasion to give the false impression that I have won lots of free points. Just be sure to mention this so I can get an easy win as per our usual agreement." You'll get your usual reward later. I have to put some ointment on my lips first because last time I got a bit chafed"
Well, that escalated quickly!
I appreciate you taking the time to read the debate, and to vote.
Quote - "given that if CO2 caused nothing but clouds"
This was never stated in the debate which is evidence that you didn't even read the debate. Thus, you are a fraud and need to be expelled from all debating sites and put into a maximum security prison where you can't cause any further damage and harm to society.
I don't want to be lectured on debating rules by a rude little cretin and bias cheat.
Since you insist you lack the skill the argue (your invented quotation can only be attributed to yourself), here's a lesson on the core concept you need to master before taking such a hard topic:
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
Thanks for sharing that video. I do wish this debate had been that entertaining.
As a debater, it is your job to provide a convincing argument for judges/voters as to why your opponent is wrong, and your opponents points should be discounted.
If you provide no arguments as to why a point should be discounted, them this is your fault.
Whatever you think my reply should, or should not have been - it’s your duty as a debater to provide some form of valid, logical counter to it.
If you provide no argument at all, then regardless of your reasons, or motivations: you have failed to provide an rebuttal and the original argument must be considered unrefuted.
Quote "U donn hav da skiel toe argoo". lol Whoooa!!! What kind of retarded cretins inhabit this site anyway? I don't think I'll be debating here anymore.
If I had said that a statement was rude, obnoxious or stupid. Then you would have just said that it was a personal opinion and thus, didn't carry any weight because you only value peer reviewed and other nonsense documents.
In the context of formal debate - as this is - drop refers to the argument not being referenced, and no rebuttal to a point being common: it is an exceptionally common phrase used within the context of formal debate, rather than being some vulgar or uncultured term I am using to abuse you.
When someone drops an argument it means that one side has neglected to respond, and the original point must be considered unrefuted.
If you ignore an argument, and do not respond to it, in formal debate, it is very much considered that the person ignoring the point has given up contesting it. That’s what dropping an argument means.
If you felt a detailed scientific argument was rude, or obnoxious - then you should have argued this in the debate, rather than dropping almost every point raised with little or no further reference.
Voters ahould not need to read your mind to appreciate your arguments.
To me, the term "dropped" its vulgar, uncultured, abrupt, insensitive, moronic, childish and immature. Thus, if the profile fits, then wear it.
Note - Just because somebody didn't mention a subject again doesn't necessarily mean that they have given up or lost that point to the other party. Thus, using the word "dropped" rudely assumes that the debater has given up on that point which would be a false or presumptuous conclusion.
In your case, I didn't mention it again because your reply was probably (a) obnoxious (b) childish (c) or stupid. Thus, I didn't see any further reason to repeat it again. When debating you deal with the supplied information as is and don't go looking for dirt that you can dig up on the suppliers credentials. All that matters is that the information is correct. The source is irrelevant. The peer review system is utter nonsense and corruption gone crazy as I have already proven in the forum section.
Actually, “dropped” is a debate term that is used frequently to highlight when an opponent has ignored an argument or omitted a rebuttal. In general, debaters draw attention to this in order to highlight important omissions to the judges.
The term "dropped" is a crude and rude terminology that only an immature and uncouth teenager would use. Thus, your poor use and abuse of language gives me an accurate personality profile. Not good!
This was actually covered in round 5 (the crazy dousing guy with no credibility), and round 4 - where o pointed out the argument is a red herring.
Feel free to review the debate - where I went through and highlighted each individual point you dropped, I would do it again here, but I am limited by word count.
No rebuttal of Nils-axel Morner's report Con? That's a shame!
No rebuttal of the wild 50 million people displacement scare tatics con? That's a shame too.
Oh, I forgot to mention the fraud that you committed when you defended the 50 million displaced people which you included 22.5 million people displaced by subduction, not seas level rising. Note - Fraud is a 10 year jail sentence in my country Con. See you in court Con. I have the evidence right here. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI&t=3m05s
Far south ocean cools kiss goodbye to polar amplication
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/far-southern-ocean-cools-kiss-goodbye-to-polar-amplication-around-antarctica/