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!
Man-made Climate Change is real
in Science
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
"In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. "
One of the main issues should be obvious - if climate change is effected by manmade factors then how can they predict what it will be when the human input could change and in fact they are actively trying to get the human input to change?
That's one of the key reasons why the IPCC releases multiple scenarios based on different inputs, because there is no one guaranteed level of future emissions.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.94  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also a your unsupported claims are totally wrong with the last couple of years including the warmest winter since records began in Pennsylvania: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ydr.com/amp/78178858
Guess your anecdotal comments aren't even accurate.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 11  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.56  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.32  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Therefore anything"man made" is natural."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/natural
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 21%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 64%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
As per your request for references, the following references are to the combined misunderstandings in Science that were accompanied by Scientific Consensus. Coincidentally, a vast majority of these misunderstandings were defeated by a singular person or group who's research went against the consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/
I'm inclined to side with the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) who states: "The long-term prediction of future climate states IS NOT POSSIBLE".
Now I'm waiting to hear about how these references to the centuries of Scientific consensus' that were wrong are somehow irrelevant even though you asked for them specifically.
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.12  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Here have some more graphs
“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!
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.74  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 18%  
  Learn More About Debra
“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!
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.48  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
400,000 years is a good amount of time to track the carbon cycle. Also, basic physics on why carbon traps heat.
Really all these
- Simple chemistry that when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in the 1900s)
- Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2we emit (data collection beginning in the 1970s)
- 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)
- Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in the 1950s)
- Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in the 1820s)
- Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in the 1930s)
- Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the Sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in the 1830s)
- Employing computer models to run experiments of natural vs. human-influenced “simulated Earths” (research beginning in the 1960s)
- Consensus among scientists that consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in the 1990s)
https://sciencing.com/sun-carbon-cycle-12028231.htmlhttps://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.WnpZI6OZMdU
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 ;
“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!
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.06  
  Sources: 21  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
This is bad because a few degrees or even a half a degree C can have a dramatic effect on the globe. Especially if it is in a span of a few decades.
"But in some cases, that extra increase in temperature makes things much more dire. At 1.5 C, the study found that tropical coral reefs stand a chance of adapting and reversing a portion of their die-off in the last half of the century. But at 2 C, the chance of recovery vanishes. Tropical corals are virtually wiped out by the year 2100.
With a 1.5 C rise in temperature, the Mediterranean area is forecast to have about 9 percent less fresh water available. At 2 C, that water deficit nearly doubles. So does the decrease in wheat and maize harvest in the tropics." https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/
Here are other sources:https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/what-big-deal-planet-few-degrees-warmer
https://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm
http://www.theolympian.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article157685989.html
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_big_of_a_difference_could_a_few_degrees_make
http://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-degrees-melting-ice-2015-10
https://www.livescience.com/10325-living-warmer-2-degrees-change-earth.html
https://www.livescience.com/58891-why-2-degrees-celsius-increase-matters.html
“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!
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.76  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.8  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/weather
Climate would be based on the overall and is more accurate. Weather is different because of things like the butterfly effect, certain areas will get different weather. However, the butterfly effect does not effect the globe all at once and the impact is not on the climate. Weather forecast are getting more reliable though.
http://www.minitab.com/en-us/Published-Articles/Weather-Forecasts--Just-How-Reliable-Are-They-/
https://www.popsci.com/weather-forecasts-are-getting-better
"It's the butterfly effect in action - one small change tomorrow can ultimately lead to a massive difference after 90 days." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-many-days-can-you-trust-the-weather-forecast-for
"Ultimately, the forecasts are quite accurate." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-robbins/how-accurate-are-weather-_b_6558770.html
"It’s frustrating how many times we have to repeat this, but climate change is measured by examining long-term trends in weather statistics over large areas, like hemispheres, or the entire planet, not events happening over a few days or even a few months in a small region. A fleeting cold wave or snowstorm over the eastern United States, for example, should never be used as evidence for or against climate change. For the past several decades, Earth’s average winter temperature has warmed markedly, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. In fact, 2014 is on track to be Earth’s warmest year on record, according to NOAA." and "Weather forecasters are usually wrong." was put has a myth by https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-weather-forecasting/2015/01/02/e49e8950-8b86-11e4-a085-34e9b9f09a58_story.html?utm_term=.fb668fdf7cf0
Another quote is "Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles" by https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
“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!
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.34  
  Sources: 25  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/
Oh yeah, climatologists have a great track record of predictions;https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/30/an-inconvenient-commentary-5-times-climate-alarmists-made-horribly-wrong-predictions
I've never said weather forecasters are usually wrong, I said climatologists predictions are usually wrong. There is a difference between weather and climate, in case you didn't realize it. For their part, meteorologists are fairly skeptical about global warming posing a calamity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/04/13/another-survey-of-meteorologists-undercuts-climate-alarmism/#54fd69bc6d9a
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 21  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://thinkprogress.org/climatologist-who-predicted-california-drought-10-years-ago-says-it-may-soon-be-even-more-dire-7acbb8df218c/
https://medium.com/@qwertie/successful-predictions-of-climatology-4ca6087166cf
" Not only were climate scientists and their models correct to project global warming resulting from the increasing greenhouse effect, but they’ve been quite good at projecting the right amount of warming. Climate scientists don’t take nearly as much credit as they should for these accurate projections." https://www.skepticalscience.com/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-book.html
"A common incarnation of this skeptic argument says, “Even with state-of-the-art computer models, scientists can’t even accurately predict the weather two weeks from now, so how can they possibly tell us what’s going to happen twenty years from now?” Here we have one of those classic climate-skeptic mistakes. This mistake is confusing weather with climate." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict
"Climate isn’t the same as weather." https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict Even though you have denied it.
"What would it look like if Earth were five degrees colder on average than it is now? We would be in a glacial period. Sea levels would be perhaps 100 meters (over 320 feet) lower than they are today. (The last time this sort of thing happened, the drop in sea level aided human movement from Asia into North America because the land now under Alaska’s Bering Strait surfaced to provide something of a bridge.) Places like Chicago, London, and Manhattan would be buried under ice. Some places that are now deserts, like in the American Southwest or Afghanistan, would be wetter, while other deserts would expand. " https://www.popsci.com/is-climate-too-complex-to-model-or-predict This supports the climate change is dangerous argument.
Yeah, they really do. Just like facts really support my points.
“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!
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 27  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
To many pretty pictures and diagrams.
And to much angst.
You also seem to have given up trying to refute my logic.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Completely irrelevant. Your personal claims about a couple of years of Winters in Pennsylvania are irrelevant.
Also not sure why you're posting evidence that contradicts your claims, e.g. "The average U.S. Temperature during Jan was 32.2 F, 2.1 F above the 20th century average."
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Also if you actually see your links you'll see that most of them don't even apply to what we're talking about. We were talking about the scientific community. The scientific method didn't even properly start to develop until the 17th century so could not have been applied before then - so how could things like the emission theory of vision, discredited several hundred years before a scientific community even existed, have been part of the scientific consensus? Quick answer, it can't, which is why almost every one of the links on that wikipedia page is missing a soruce.
Lastly please don't falsify and misrepresent quotes, especially ones where I've already explained the mistake you're making. If you have to lie to back up your points then your points aren't worth making.
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.2  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/15/the-sun-is-blank-nasa-data-shows-it-to-be-dimming/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4171591.stm
“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!
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, they really don't.
Climate models versus climate reality
There are a number of good reason the models fail. Aside from those listed in the article above;
Flawed Climate Models
It doesn't help that some of the models are a series of coding errors;
Former NASA GISS climate scientist reveals incompetence, junkets, best model called "jungle" of code
But when all else fails, fake the data, so much for any credence in NASA's data;DAVID ROSE:How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth
...and for a profession so concerned about peer-review, why would they find it necessary to hide their data?
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael 'hockey stick' Mann
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 16  
  Relevant (Beta): 25%  
  Learn More About Debra
Similarly a niche newspaper slinging accusations, etc. A lot of hot air and no actual evidence.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.78  
  Sources: 16  
  Relevant (Beta): 22%  
  Learn More About Debra
Can you start debunking (or try to) the actual evidence for man-made climate change? Like the evidence on
http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p1
“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!
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
Likewise, ad hominems don't make very convincing rebuttals. Respond to the content of the articles instead of dismissing the source for no reason.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 85%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.14  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
“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!
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.54  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.48  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
The data for your graph is not available and the claims are therefore impossible to check and cannot be relied upon.
You've already been provided with CMIP5 based data that contradicts your claims and have not responded to it adequately - trying to dismiss the evidence entirely rather than having to look at it.
In fact even without seeing the data and putting aside it looks like they're cherry picking, I can see another fairly obvious fudge. They have matches the series at 1979. 1979 was an especially warm year for global atmospheric temperature so when it returned to the mean it would look like the temperature was increasing slower than predicted.
Fake science provided by a non-expert who didn't provide the data behind his claims so it could never be thoroughly checked.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Someone posted a CMIP-5 graph showing tens of thousands of models?!? Do tell.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
When you accused me of making an ad hominem you offered no evidence or logic to support this, the only comment even tangentially related being a statement that I was dismissing your evidence for no reason - an illogical claim if you are alleging ad hominem arguments seeing as the entire point of ad hominems is that you dismiss an arguement for a specific (yet ineligible) reason of the opponent's personal characteristics.
Please support your claim or I shall consider my point proven.
Also do not make strawmen arguments, you seem to be conflating at least two separate points with your stating that I claimed someone posted a CMIP5 graph showing tens of thousands of models. Disagree? Then quote where I made that claim.
Lastly please respond to my arguments or make it clear you concede. You offer no defence that your graph is totally baseless.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 36%  
  Learn More About Debra
You really should have looked up the term first. I was trying to avoid making you look foolish;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
There are different forms this logic fallacy can take. One form is through personal attacks on the poster. Another form is by dismissing a source, perhaps calling it "a niche newspaper slinging accusations" while ignoring the substance of the article quoted. Either way, you are attempting to shoot the messenger while ignoring the message; they're both forms of an Ad hominem fallacy.
As for the rest, you dismissed my graph because you were suspicious that it didn't use all of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models. I figured you only accepted graphs that use all of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models; otherwise you'd be dismissing my graph simply because it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear, a case of blatant hypocrisy.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
If an articles claims are just accusations which have been sling rather than, say, evidenced claimed, then pointing that out IS attacking the nature of the argument.
By your own definition it was not an ad hominem, unless you think slinging accusations is a valid form of evidence and want to try and make an argument supporting that.
Also, please quit strawmanning. My rationale was clearly explained.
"Not really substantive. Like I'd check the actual data behind the graph, but there's none to be found. It's suspicious enough it only uses 102 of the tens of thousands of CMIP5 models but the only reason to care about a graph is of there is reliable data behind it. Your link doesn't provide that."
It was because there is no data to support it. The graph could have no basis in reality or it could have the data warped. Maybe those 102 model runs are representative and maybe they're cherry picked.
If you had provided the data then we could see and maybe the 102 would be perfectly adequate (although it's so poorly made I doubt it).
You only believe it because it supports your view. There is no actual basis for paying a moment's attention to your graph.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
I haven't posted any articles that are just accusations, just ones that imparted information you don't want to hear, so it was an ad hominem. And yes, you've made your "rationale" quite obvious by demanding to see the data for my chart, who's source is much more clearly identified than any other graph in the thread and is publicly available. Do you question the validity of graphs who's sources aren't even linked? No, of course not, they agree with your preconceived beliefs on the issue. I'm afraid you're laid bare your hypocrisy on the issue.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 72%  
  Learn More About Debra
“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!
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
No. Blatant lie. As I stated on http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p2 and http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/1663/man-made-climate-change-is-real/p3 with graphs and quotes it has been warming a lot. It is only the human emissions that are helping stop the heating. Along with the dimming of the sun. However, it is still getting hotter.
“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!
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.72  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 13%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Summary.htm
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.38  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 75%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/roads-decoupling-21-countries-are-reducing-carbon-emissions-while-growing-gdp
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-outshines-countries-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions/
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/paris-2015-tracking-country-climate-pledges (sigh we are leaving)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/
“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!
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
The latter half of your post can be disregarded as a tu quoque logical fallacy - nothing you have said means my logic and claims against you are wrong.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 52%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
i once again use reasoning to point out the rationale basis for dismissing your post - that it does not meet the most basic requirements of an argument by having evidence, logic or reasoning to support its claims. My post is once again a valid contribution.
Do you actually think you are coming off well in these exchanges?
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
If you have problems with change, let’s increase taxes and regulations, hoping to stop the universal clock of change.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Ampersand and I have explained this before. The rate of this happening is too fast. We should probably be cooling because the Sun is dimming. We are emitting all the Carbon that is heating up the planet. This, right now, is not natural.
"Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
Climate models are reliable
"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean." "While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-basic.htm
“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!
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
If the "climate models did not (on average) reproduce the observed temperature trend" means the climate models are reliable, that's not a good thing for climate alarmism, as it means they are reliably wrong.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.26  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
Still warming and the quote proves that man-made climate change is real. Thank you for proving my point! The debate is officially over because you admitted that I am right. Your source, http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf "in spite of the continued increase in anthropogenic forcing."
“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!
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra