Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?

Opening Argument

agsragsr 812 Pts
edited February 11 in Global

Debate if human activity is a substantial cause for global climate change has been a long-standing topic.  


We will examine multiple dimensions of the climate change debate, including prior DebateIsland debates, fact-checking sites, statements by President Trump, a detailed study of 100 reasons by European Foundation, and news/research articles advocating man-caused climate change theory.

We already had 3 heated debates on DebateIsland on this topic

1) Man-made Climate Change is real

http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-is-real

2) Climate Change

http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/1053/climate-change

3) Is Trump Going To Worsen Climate Change?

http://debateisland.com/discussion/31/is-trump-going-to-worsen-climate-change


Human-caused climate change publications in the news

There are a number of publications that propose arguments for why human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change.

Humans found guilty in climate change

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/humans-found-guilty-climate-change

The IPCC, which produces such a report about every six years, had previously estimated only a 90 percent confidence level that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are contributing to the world’s rising temperatures. A warmer climate threatens to raise sea level — drowning islands and coastlines — and dramatically alter agriculture and ecosystems around the world.

Most Scientists Agree: Humans are Causing Global Climate Change

They found that more than 97 percent of the scientists who expressed any opinion in their papers about the primary cause of global climate change believed that human activity was the cause. 

Fact, Not Opinion: Climate Change Is Happening and Is Caused by Human Activities



Lets turn to fact checking websites to tell us if human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?

Statements about Climate Change

Most scientists agree that climate change is real and humans are causing it. The figure that’s widely cited is 97 percent of climate scientists, and it appears in at least three peer-reviewed surveys. Plenty of other studies report overwhelming majorities of experts (in the 90 percent range) and at least 18 scientific associations agree.
However, polifact has a scorecard that shows how many climate change claims are actually true or not, simce there is lots of misleading information out there.  In fact, only 14% is true and 18% mostly true. 52% is dead wrong, false, or mostly false.
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/climate-change/

In fact, Polifact fact checked 3 pages worth of false climate change claims, ranging from statements by Trump, Al Gore, and Sarah Palin.
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/climate-change/statements/byruling/false/

More than 30,000 people may have signed a petition challenging the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, but you don’t have to be a climate scientist, or even a practicing scientist, to sign that document.

Claim classified as mostly false.
https://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

White House Releases Report Contradicting Its Own Position on Climate Change

There is no "convincing alternative explanation" for recent warming besides human activity, a congressionally mandated study reports.

Claim classified as true.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/03/white-house-releases-report-climate-change/

Is This Time Magazine Cover About “Global Cooling”?

Despite all their bluster, climate denial blogs still do not appear to understand the difference between weather and climate.

Claim classified as false.
https://www.snopes.com/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/


Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?

An article on Breitbart News used flawed interpretations from a climate skeptic blog to amplify a grossly inaccurate understanding of climatological research.



Hurricane Harvey and Climate Change

Hurricane Harvey has brought with it both a record amount of rain and questions about how much climate change can be blamed for the storm. Climate change did not cause Harvey, or any other storm, but it makes intense storms like Harvey more likely to occur, scientists say.

Claim classified as mostly false.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-climate-change/


Trump on Climate Change

If you are interested where Trump really stands on Climate Change, then you will learn that he is technically open minded, but is clear that he doesn't see enough evidence to support it.
Here are all statements that Trump made about climate change - fact checked.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/trump-on-climate-change/


Top 100 reasons as per 2009 European Foundations Dossier why climate change is natural:


1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7°C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that,
“fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history - we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and water - can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization, wrote,
“the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1°C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”
58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialized countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years - so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”
71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback - and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money - under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to £1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures - in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around £4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change skeptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said:
“We - along with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”
99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated,
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded,
“We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

Source: 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural


natbaronsPogueqipwbdeosomeone234
  1. Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change

    16 votes
    1. Yes - human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change
      68.75%
    2. No - human activity isn't a substantial cause of global climate change
        6.25%
    3. we don't yet know either way If climate change is caused by human activity
      25.00%
Live Long and Prosper



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 537 Pts
    edited February 11
    The poll needs another option; something like "it hasn't been definitively established either way" or "we don't yet know either way".

    agsrDrCereal
  • I believe that global climate change is substantially caused by human activity.

    The rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century was clearly caused by human activity, as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce.

    Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. Some climate models predict that by the end of the 21st century an additional 5°F-10°F of warming will occur. 

    We pump so much CO2 into the air, ruining the ozone layer that it's messing up our environment in multiple ways.  

    It's convinient to hid behind "you can't prove it" line and abdicating accountability for action.

    PogueDrCerealqipwbdeo
    WhyTrump - a good question
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @WhyTrump
    In the Man-made Climate Change is real debate I started I put this chart

    This agrees with your point

    The rapid rise is not what it should be. It takes thousands of years to rise like that according to Bill Nye. 
    WhyTrumpanonymousdebaterMajoMILSdlGMGVDrCerealqipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • WhyTrump said:

    I believe that global climate change is substantially caused by human activity.

    The rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last century was clearly caused by human activity, as it occurred at a rate much faster than natural climate changes could produce.

    Over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm until the mid-20th century. Atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013. Some climate models predict that by the end of the 21st century an additional 5°F-10°F of warming will occur. 

    We pump so much CO2 into the air, ruining the ozone layer that it's messing up our environment in multiple ways.  

    It's convinient to hid behind "you can't prove it" line and abdicating accountability for action.

    Not only is it convenient that it can't be proven, it also happens to be true.  BTW, CO2 is actually helping rebuild the ozone layer;

    Journal of Geographical Research by a joint research team from the University of Maryland and NASA, overall, the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is speeding up the recovery of the ozone layer -- including the hole at the South Pole.

    https://sciencing.com/co2-deplete-ozone-layer-4828.html


    LibertineStates
  • Climate change was not caused by humans or their activity. Earth may have climate changes during certain periods of time.
    DrCerealLibertineStatesPogueqipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    edited February 13
    @natbarons
    Yes but never was it this rapid.


    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • MikeMike 86 Pts

    Climate change is a natural event. Since humans are part of nature and nature is all about change via the physical constructal law, so what is the issue? Whether humans were here or not, climate change happens, for we live in a constantly changing universe in every instance of time.

    Those who’s ideology blames humans for climate change, seems to believe by increasing taxes and regulations (aka government tyranny), can stop climate change.

    My recommendation is let the climate experts work this problem out. When the science is resolved and understood, there would be no debate among the experts. Those want-a-be experts in social media debates have a knack to cherry pick from the experts to support one’s ideology. In the meantime, we should hear what Dr. Carlin’s view is on the subject. 

    DrCerealLibertineStatesPogueqipwbdeo
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Mike
    The rate of change is too rapid. How many times do I have to repeat this fact? Climate has never changed this quickly!
    DrCerealLibertineStatesqipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    Pogue said:
    @Mike
    The rate of change is too rapid. How many times do I have to repeat this fact? Climate has never changed this quickly!

    “Never” is a long time. Perhaps, you should ask the dinosaurs about, “Climate … changed … quickly.” That climate change event turned out to benefit our evolution.

    It is clear to me, since the climate debate is still within the scientific community, there is little here to debate. That is, according to Oxford Research, “Debates about climate change, such as among scientists working in universities or research centers, tend to focus on uncertainties at the edge of scientific knowledge—the things that are only just beginning to be understood.”

    We could cherry pick all day because the science in climate-change as a function of humans, has yet to be resolved.

    LibertineStatesDrCereal
  • @Mike You do realize that you're taking seriously the comments of the same person who said that one way of getting rid of the budget deficit was to put every criminal in a huge prison and have them kill each other, right? It's called being a comedian. You're more autistic than the actually-diagnosed autistic person speaking to you right now. How ironic.

    The reason why humans benefited from the dinosaur event was not because of the climate change event itself, but because of the fact that the dinosaurs died off, thus giving us a realistic chance of survival.


    MikePogueqipwbdeo
  • @Mike
    What exactly are your intentions with your posts?
    MikeLibertineStatesqipwbdeoPogue
    Bis das, si cito das.
  • Mike said:

    Climate change is a natural event. Since humans are part of nature and nature is all about change via the physical constructal law, so what is the issue? Whether humans were here or not, climate change happens, for we live in a constantly changing universe in every instance of time.

    Those who’s ideology blames humans for climate change, seems to believe by increasing taxes and regulations (aka government tyranny), can stop climate change.

    My recommendation is let the climate experts work this problem out. When the science is resolved and understood, there would be no debate among the experts. Those want-a-be experts in social media debates have a knack to cherry pick from the experts to support one’s ideology. In the meantime, we should hear what Dr. Carlin’s view is on the subject. 

    People are creatrues, creatures die - so what would it matter in the grand scheme of things if I broke into your home and killed you????</sarcasm>

    We are people. People care about stuff that happens in the world.

    Also climate change is not an ideology - it's science.


    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • Mike said:
    Pogue said:
    @Mike
    The rate of change is too rapid. How many times do I have to repeat this fact? Climate has never changed this quickly!

    “Never” is a long time. Perhaps, you should ask the dinosaurs about, “Climate … changed … quickly.” That climate change event turned out to benefit our evolution.

    It is clear to me, since the climate debate is still within the scientific community, there is little here to debate. That is, according to Oxford Research, “Debates about climate change, such as among scientists working in universities or research centers, tend to focus on uncertainties at the edge of scientific knowledge—the things that are only just beginning to be understood.”

    We could cherry pick all day because the science in climate-change as a function of humans, has yet to be resolved.

    You've misquoted the article. To quote the full paragraph:

    "Debates about climate change, such as among scientists working in universities or research centers, tend to focus on uncertainties at the edge of scientific knowledge—the things that are only just beginning to be understood. Debates outside these environments, such as where the public (i.e., non-scientists) is involved, are more likely to include disagreement about issues or topics that are no longer considered controversial by the majority of climate scientists (Painter & Gavin, 2015). These include discussions about the anthropogenic influence on the climate system, including whether or not climate impacts can already be observed."

    it's saying that there is only a true debate on the marginal technical points - when it comes to the central concern of "Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?" there is no scientific debate.

    Your own source contradicts you and by your own metrics we should now accept that climate change is real and mankind is a substantial cause of it.

    Also your reasoning is counter scientific. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to get results out into the open so that everyone - even the general public, can look at the stats and data, check that claims are supported by the results of studies, etc. An enquiring mind doesn't shut themselves off and the idea that that is the approach we should take on a debate site with specific scientific and technological categories - to not actually form opinions and debate - is laughable.
    qipwbdeoPogue
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Mike You do realize that you're taking seriously the comments of the same person who said that one way of getting rid of the budget deficit was to put every criminal in a huge prison and have them kill each other, right? It's called being a comedian. You're more autistic than the actually-diagnosed autistic person speaking to you right now. How ironic.

    The reason why humans benefited from the dinosaur event was not because of the climate change event itself, but because of the fact that the dinosaurs died off, thus giving us a realistic chance of survival.


    When did I say that "one way of getting rid of the budget deficit was to put every criminal in a huge prison and have them kill each other, right?" I am actually in favor of the complete opposite. I do not think you are referring to me. However, @Mike is only responding to me (at the time). You even fist bumped me
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • 1.) we know Carbon Dioxide, Water, and Methane in the atmosphere trap heat.

    2.) we know, that water has a near net-zero impact in general given the water cycle.

    3.) we know that humans have burnt millions upon millions of tonnes of fissile fuels and have released multiple Gigatones of carbon into the atmosphere.

    4.) we can measure the suns solar output and changes over time, and we know the earths axial wobble, and orbital parameters well enough to know that the amount of heat the earth receives fluctatuates, but not enough to cause the type of temperature variations we see.

    5.) it doesn’t appear that there’s enough volcanic activity or changes over enough time to account for the additional carbon dioxide.


    So; the temperature of the earth is rapidly increasing, we know co2 will warm the planet, and the levels are increasing faster than at any point in Eartsh history, it happens to all coincide with a time where humans started burning billions of tonnes of fossile fuels: and thus far we have not found or measured any natural mechanism that could account for the rate of change of co2, or temperature.

    I’m not entirely sure why people aren’t on the fence; but even with no more information than I have just provided, with out any more in-depth science on the subject: you kinda have to agree that this is not far off an open-and-shut case.
    Pogueqipwbdeo
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    Ampersand said:
    ....
    You've misquoted the article. To quote the full paragraph:

    "Debates about climate change, such as among scientists working in universities or research centers, tend to focus on uncertainties at the edge of scientific knowledge—the things that are only just beginning to be understood. Debates outside these environments, such as where the public (i.e., non-scientists) is involved, are more likely to include disagreement about issues or topics that are no longer considered controversial by the majority of climate scientists (Painter & Gavin, 2015). These include discussions about the anthropogenic influence on the climate system, including whether or not climate impacts can already be observed."

    it's saying that there is only a true debate on the marginal technical points - when it comes to the central concern of "Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?" there is no scientific debate.

    Your own source contradicts you and by your own metrics we should now accept that climate change is real and mankind is a substantial cause of it.

    Also your reasoning is counter scientific. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to get results out into the open so that everyone - even the general public, can look at the stats and data, check that claims are supported by the results of studies, etc. An enquiring mind doesn't shut themselves off and the idea that that is the approach we should take on a debate site with specific scientific and technological categories - to not actually form opinions and debate - is laughable.

    Thank you for quoting the whole paragraph from Oxford Research, however, it does not change my point. As for your quote about, “Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change? There is no scientific debate.” Your assumption about “human activity a substantial cause of global climate change” is what the scientists has yet to be determined. Please read the Oxford paragraph again!

    Where in the Oxford Research have the scientist agree that human activity is the “substantial cause of global climate change”? It is true humans have an impact on climate, but if you were to read the article again the scientists are “focus on uncertainties”, in other words, the “substantial” or not-substantial, is the debate within the scientific community.  On that note, debunks the opening argument of this post about the “substantial” factor.   

    That is the “laughable” part about these “climate change” debates among non-scientist, they fail to get into the weeds and “focus on uncertainties” where the scientist are currently at. These uncertainties are found within the metrology, the empirical and what statistical tools are used in developing models. This is where the debate is!

  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Mike said:
    Ampersand said:
    ....
    You've misquoted the article. To quote the full paragraph:

    "Debates about climate change, such as among scientists working in universities or research centers, tend to focus on uncertainties at the edge of scientific knowledge—the things that are only just beginning to be understood. Debates outside these environments, such as where the public (i.e., non-scientists) is involved, are more likely to include disagreement about issues or topics that are no longer considered controversial by the majority of climate scientists (Painter & Gavin, 2015). These include discussions about the anthropogenic influence on the climate system, including whether or not climate impacts can already be observed."

    it's saying that there is only a true debate on the marginal technical points - when it comes to the central concern of "Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change?" there is no scientific debate.

    Your own source contradicts you and by your own metrics we should now accept that climate change is real and mankind is a substantial cause of it.

    Also your reasoning is counter scientific. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to get results out into the open so that everyone - even the general public, can look at the stats and data, check that claims are supported by the results of studies, etc. An enquiring mind doesn't shut themselves off and the idea that that is the approach we should take on a debate site with specific scientific and technological categories - to not actually form opinions and debate - is laughable.

    Thank you for quoting the whole paragraph from Oxford Research, however, it does not change my point. As for your quote about, “Is human activity a substantial cause of global climate change? There is no scientific debate.” Your assumption about “human activity a substantial cause of global climate change” is what the scientists has yet to be determined. Please read the Oxford paragraph again!

    Where in the Oxford Research have the scientist agree that human activity is the “substantial cause of global climate change”? It is true humans have an impact on climate, but if you were to read the article again the scientists are “focus on uncertainties”, in other words, the “substantial” or not-substantial, is the debate within the scientific community.  On that note, debunks the opening argument of this post about the “substantial” factor.   

    That is the “laughable” part about these “climate change” debates among non-scientist, they fail to get into the weeds and “focus on uncertainties” where the scientist are currently at. These uncertainties are found within the metrology, the empirical and what statistical tools are used in developing models. This is where the debate is!

    The 3% of scientific papers that say climate change is not real or man-made is, according to Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, "Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

    All the evidence is alighned with man-made climate change being real. How do you know none of us on this site are climatoligsts (or at least studying to be one).  
    LibertineStatesqipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    Pogue said:

    The 3% of scientific papers that say climate change is not real or man-made is, according to Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, "Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

    All the evidence is alighned with man-made climate change being real. How do you know none of us on this site are climatoligsts (or at least studying to be one).  

    The scientific method is not a democracy! Using your “3%” figure, it is not about the 97% in agreement with each other, while they claim the “3%” are “not real”; it’s about the “uncertainties” where the scientific debate currently resides. You should read some of Thomas Kuhn’s writings where he said:   

    “Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few individuals. It is they who first learn to see science and the world differently, and their ability to make the transition is facilitated by two circumstances that are not common to most other members of their profession. Invariably their attention has been intensely concentrated upon the crisis-provoking problems; usually, in addition, they are men so young or so new to the crisis-ridden field that practice has committed them less deeply than most of their contemporaries to the world view and rules determined by the old paradigm.”

    It is not about the 3%, it’s about that 0.001% who nails it. 

  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Mike said:
    Pogue said:

    The 3% of scientific papers that say climate change is not real or man-made is, according to Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, "Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

    All the evidence is alighned with man-made climate change being real. How do you know none of us on this site are climatoligsts (or at least studying to be one).  

    The scientific method is not a democracy! Using your “3%” figure, it is not about the 97% in agreement with each other, while they claim the “3%” are “not real”; it’s about the “uncertainties” where the scientific debate currently resides. You should read some of Thomas Kuhn’s writings where he said:   

    “Any new interpretation of nature, whether a discovery or a theory, emerges first in the mind of one or a few individuals. It is they who first learn to see science and the world differently, and their ability to make the transition is facilitated by two circumstances that are not common to most other members of their profession. Invariably their attention has been intensely concentrated upon the crisis-provoking problems; usually, in addition, they are men so young or so new to the crisis-ridden field that practice has committed them less deeply than most of their contemporaries to the world view and rules determined by the old paradigm.”

    It is not about the 3%, it’s about that 0.001% who nails it. 

    It is not the scientist that give their claims meaning, it is the evidence that supports it. 
    qipwbdeo
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • MikeMike 86 Pts
    @Pogue

    Again the debate is about the “uncertainties”, not the “evidence.” The “substantial” claim in the opening argument of this post, is meaningless.

    With that, I must move on. My apologies, if I fail in directing your focus where the scientific debate resides. 

  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Mike
    Humans are a substantial cause of global climate change. I posted this in another debate
    1. Simple chemistry that when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s)
    2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s)
    3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is indeed increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years  (measurements beginning in the 1950s)
    4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s)
    5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s)
    6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in the 1930s)
    7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the Sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s)
    8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural vs. human-influenced “simulated Earths” (research beginning in the 1960s)
    9. Consensus among scientists that consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s)
    "In fact, we are statistically more confident that humans cause climate change than that smoking causes cancer."

    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2017/03/23/how-do-we-know-that-humans-are-causing-climate-change-these-nine-lines-of-evidence/
    https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change 
    qipwbdeoEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Mike said:
    @Pogue

    Again the debate is about the “uncertainties”, not the “evidence.” The “substantial” claim in the opening argument of this post, is meaningless.

    With that, I must move on. My apologies, if I fail in directing your focus where the scientific debate resides. 

    Your 0.001% uncertainty is meaningless as it's been pulled out of thin air and has no relevance beyond it being a random benchmark that you have requested. You have given no reason why it should be considered relevant. 
    qipwbdeo
  • averyaproaveryapro 124 Pts
    I think that humans have played a huge role in climate change. Humans do things without even thinking about the environment nowadays. Everyone is thinking about what is best for their company. Humans release around 82.4 million barrels of fossil fuels per day. This will obviously gradually heat the world up since these gases stay below the ozone layer and evaporate eventually. However, when they evaporate it is hot air which spreads and the world's climate gradually gets hotter. 
  • someone234someone234 508 Pts
    edited May 17
    I am a flat-earth conspiracy-theorist who thinks 9/11 was an inside job but I support global warming being influenced by man's activity. The pollution can be seen to directly affect the health of those in China and other nations that care so little for their environment. I do not like the term 'global warming' because to me the climate change is far more harmful in how it affects air-based gases and pH of the oceans.
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 42 Pts
    From the evidence I've studied in published papers, there is no definite conclusion, and the models lean towards humanity having a very negligible impact on the natural climate change. That said, I think that the narrative in favor of AGW is useful in practice, as it leads to innovations and advancements in science, as well as in bigger focus on addressing the local air pollution issues than in the absence of this narrative.

    It is somewhat similar to the "nuclear winter" claims: scientific models do not support them, but those claims do result in politicians being more careful with their international actions, resulting in fewer military conflicts. Imagine if scientists made a conclusive claim that a nuclear war would not exterminate humanity or destroy the Earth ecosystem - say, in mid-50-s... Chances are, World War 3 would have already happened, with disastrous consequences. Similarly, if the AGW narrative wasn't popular, then chances are the New York City downtown would be a perfect place to visit if you wanted to get lung cancer.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 537 Pts
    MayCaesar said:
    From the evidence I've studied in published papers, there is no definite conclusion, and the models lean towards humanity having a very negligible impact on the natural climate change. That said, I think that the narrative in favor of AGW is useful in practice, as it leads to innovations and advancements in science, as well as in bigger focus on addressing the local air pollution issues than in the absence of this narrative.

    It is somewhat similar to the "nuclear winter" claims: scientific models do not support them, but those claims do result in politicians being more careful with their international actions, resulting in fewer military conflicts. Imagine if scientists made a conclusive claim that a nuclear war would not exterminate humanity or destroy the Earth ecosystem - say, in mid-50-s... Chances are, World War 3 would have already happened, with disastrous consequences. Similarly, if the AGW narrative wasn't popular, then chances are the New York City downtown would be a perfect place to visit if you wanted to get lung cancer.
    I don't think you assumption has a proper foundation.  Efforts were underway to address air pollution decades before global warming alarmism became the religion it is today.  Even in the 70s when global cooling and the coming ice age was all the rage, air pollution was known as an issue that needed to be dealt with.  It was one of the reasons Nixon created the EPA in 1970.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch