Help on a global warming debate

[ray245]

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=141752

I was wondering, can any senior debaters point out any good ways to attack their view that global warming isn't man-made, and what flaws do I have in my arguments?

[Akkleptos]

As easy as pointing out the amount of Carbon-Dioxide and other greenhouse gasses being released to the Earth's athmosphere by transportation and human industrial activity alone, not to mention farming and cattle, which also account for a whopping 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2, according to this UN report: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... r1=warming.

There's no way in hell that's not affecting weather patterns in a significant way.

Oops! Sorry, I'm not a senior debater, but I hope you find that bit of information useful, nevertheless.

Also, about what that bloke Tuisto said:

False; 32,000+ acclaimed scientists signed a petition stating that "Manmade Global Climate Change" was essentially hogwash. The Earths climate is not static, it changes on it's own irregardless of human activity, and one of the early "Global Warming" screamers (whose french and I cannot recall his name) has recanted everything he said for 30 years about the matter, and has reversed his opinion to possible global cooling for the next 500 years.

I would say: "Sources, sources!". Where can one find such document? Who are these "acclaimed scientists"? Why exactly are they acclamation material? Who's that French early Global Warming "screamer"? Where can we read him taking back all the stuff Tusito said he took back?

[Samuel]

The Earths climate is not static, it changes on it's own irregardless of human activity,

So does human blood levels...And yet shooting someone wreaks the equilibrium.

and one of the early "Global Warming" screamers (whose french and I cannot recall his name) has recanted everything he said for 30 years about the matter, and has reversed his opinion to possible global cooling for the next 500 years.

Science is based on consensous, not single individuals.

Other than that... look at the pretty 4" of snow in Las Vegas...

Look at a hurricane in the South Atlantic. Or the 2005 heatwave in Europe. We have been having alot of freaky weather.

I just see it as massive hubris to think we have much, if any impact on the climate at all.

We can see when the Clean Air Act was passed due to changes in the ice cores.

Because they cannot prove it. Even the IPCC says plainly it cannot prove its thesis, even though it does so very nicely and basically in its footnotes on page 700something. It's also not credible because they got the correlation between temperature increases and atmospheric CO2 increases wrong.

We can't prove the Sun will rise tomorrow either. We can show there is a strong correlation though.

Are for the correlation, how did they get it wrong?

Global temperature has stagnated for the past ten years, and has actually decreased in 2008.

We are looking at an overall trend. As for why it slowed, particulates decrease global warming (although they are murder for your lungs). Guess what China has been spewing out at an insane rate recently?

The whole premise of man-made globla warming is based on the effects of CO2, and ignores a whole shitload of other factors.

There is also methane... which also has a large human component.

What ther factors are you talking about?

Quite frankly, the whole theory has as many holes as a worm-rotten boat hull, and the IPCC is at first a political gremium. Before doznes of billions of dollars are spent on projections based on shoddy models, how about we actually refine the science?

Because the current models show that waiting increases the cost of dealing with the problem.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... 8_was.html

Doesn't rebut linkage.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9649C8B63

That will not happen. Annual temperatures in the Antarctic interior average minus 70 degrees or colder. Even a 10-degree temperature rise -- greater than climate models' worst-case predictions -- would leave almost all of the ice frozen.

Warming is expectedtobe most extreme at the poles.And it just needs to get warm enough for a short period of time- then it will melt and refreeze.

Also, the article is 6 years old. Things have changed in a few short years.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story. ... 28f14da388

And Flew converted to deism.

http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08305/
The US has about 22 million scientists and engineers.Which means 31 thousand is .14%

[Junghalli]

Urgh, SB is crawling with global warming deniers for some reason. They've pulled the same song and dance on me.

Just what is it with this stupid idea that it's somehow "hubris" to think human activity can alter climate? Do they believe altering the climate is just something that's magically beyond us? Oh yeah, they're desperate and will do anything to escape having to actually admit the problem or that they share responsibility for it, because then they'd have to deal with it.

I suggest slapping them with before and after pictures of mountain glaciers that are melting due to global warming, and when they say it isn't our fault point out it's mighty convenient that this happening at the same time we're releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gas.

And if somebody comes on there and starts saying that man-made CO2 is small in gross quantity compared to natural CO2, feel free to slap him for not understanding the principle of equilibriums and how they can be disrupted by relatively minor changes.

[ray245]

Urgh, SB is crawling with global warming deniers for some reason. They've pulled the same song and dance on me.

Just what is it with this stupid idea that it's somehow "hubris" to think human activity can alter climate? Do they believe altering the climate is just something that's magically beyond us? Oh yeah, they're desperate and will do anything to escape having to actually admit the problem or that they share responsibility for it, because then they'd have to deal with it.

I suggest slapping them with before and after pictures of mountain glaciers that are melting due to global warming, and when they say it isn't our fault point out it's mighty convenient that this happening at the same time we're releasing huge amounts of greenhouse gas.

And if somebody comes on there and starts saying that man-made CO2 is small in gross quantity compared to natural CO2, feel free to slap him for not understanding the principle of equilibriums and how they can be disrupted by relatively minor changes.

Perhaps it is due to their board culture? Given the amount of irresponsible people around, who likes to take up the image of being an internet-tough guy, not having actual commitments beyond science fiction, it does set a trend of tolerating bullshit arguments.

When you have people who has never moved pass the age where you believe that wars, fighting and killing are 'fun' , what makes you think that they can accept any form of responsibility?