Climate change

I will present my position, and then I will state the things upon me and Con agree, then I will react to the arguments brought up by Con. My position I have stated that humans "drive" global warming in a significant degree. Significant is the key word here. Nobody is so naive to consider that global climate is driven only or even mostly by humans. That would be an absurd position and a probatio diabolica for Pro taking into account things like solar activity, ocean currents or vulcanic activity. I have chosen the more sane position that human activity is an important or significant factor of global warming. By this I understand that what we do with regard to greenhouse gases has consequences on the climate and ultimately on us. Consensus I agree with Con that this is a broad topic. However even from the second round there are things upon we have already agreed effectively narrowing the topic. The first agreed fact is that the climate is warming. This is an smart choice from Con, as it would have been more difficult to argue that the climate is not warming. Also, Con admits that humans have a marginal effect. I say that this effect is important. We also agree that we are talking only about greenhouse gases even if this reduces the examples that Pro can bring up. In addition I want to point out the contradiction between the second paragraph and the last paragraph of Con. In the first paragraph he admits that there is global warming and in the last paragraph he talks about cO2 increase not explaining "stable" recent temperatures. I want a clarification on this position as I can not counterargument both these statements without contradicting myself. I now ask Con if we can agree upon a criterion or standard that can determine what important means for this debate? A good criterion could be the answer to the question: IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DO SOMETHING (green energy, trade caps etc. ) ABOUT IT? This standard/criterion can be refined but I think it is a good start. Disensus Con states that IPCC is biased, incompetent or has a secret agenda determined by bureaucrats. In the evidence presented [1] a scientist resigned from IPCC because he feared that IPCC MAY depart from scientific objectivity. He resigned because he considers that climate change science must remain politically neutral. Furthermore no one "imposed" any ideas on the scientist. I demand proof that there are imposed views on such a huge number of scientists. On the other hand it would be foolish for us to think that the discoveries of climate scientists have no political meaning. Besides the science there is an also a political battle. For the sake of our debate the two must be understood separately. Bearing this in mind I must point out that Con has pointed no secret agenda or motives for the IPCC to be biased. On the other hand I can point out a clear secret agenda (from the political perspective. There are people (like Con) that deny GW for the sake of finding the truth). One example is the editing of climate change reports by the White House [2]. The other two are the founding of The Marshal Institute by Exxon Mobile (the books quoted by Con are edited by the Marshal Institute) [3] and the relentless effort by the industry to promote climate change denial [4]. Their effort is nevertheless futile: first they argued that there is no GW, then that humans have no influence, than that the influence is insignificant etc. When comparing the "secret agenda" of IPCC and the quite obvious agenda of companies like Exxon it is clear who has more interest to mix politics and science and to misinform. Regarding the science arguments presented by Con, I will first point out that Con did not talk about anything about the super greenhouse effect on Venus that I have previously mentioned. This example shows that greenhouse gasses can produce quite dramatic effects. So from this perspective I consider that things are clear. With regards to many of the other arguments of Con, I must point out that his strategy is flawed. He will never win by pointing out a huge number of other causes that drive the climate even if they are more powerful than Co2. I clearly stated that I will prove that Co2 has a significant effect on GW. To make things more clear (bearing in mind the simplifications), let's consider t= f (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, clouds, particles, Co2 etc. ) + e. Con can win if he shows that: the system is not sensible to Co2 variations; Co2 variations cause a smaller temperature increase than the noise (e); Co2 receives a negative feed-back that counters its effect. By analogy, if there is a heart stroke risk of x because of eating to much fat you can't prove that this risk is smaller by showing that drinking also has a y hart stroke risk. Furthermore, in the first round I pointed out a positive feedback of Co2. Con dismissed this feedback saying that temperatures increased in the past and there was "something" that stopped this vicious circle. This is wrong because, as I showed in my proof, these are the highest levels of Co2 reached in 650 000 years [5]. Also, when there was warmer weather in the past there also was more vegetation to absorb the Co2. Now we have more Co2, warmer weather and less vegetation so the Co2 is not absorbed by anything at the rate by which it is produced. There is proof of this happening in the Carboniferous Era 300 million years ago [6]. Unfortunately we do not have giant forests to gather the solar heat and the Co2. The proof that shows that nowadays the Co2 levels are at a record level also dismisses the "all this happened before and it will happen again" argument made by Con. Con alleges that Co2 variations must have a multiplier. This is not true. It is enough for Co2 to create a 0.5 C increase for every 40% to have significant effects. Furthermore Con states that if climate would be a car than the Co2 would be an acceleration pedal. To be more exact we should consider climate a car with multiple pedals (sun, volcanoes, etc. ). Some pedals accelerate the car faster (sun), others accelerate the car slower (Co2). The fact that climate changed in less than 800 years simply shows that another more violent factor was involved not that Co2 theory is wrong. Further more the lag between temperature increase and Co2 has no significance. There will be a day of reckoning since Co2 is produced at a higher rate than it is absorbed in an ever increasing temperature that prevents Co2 absorption by oceans. Furthermore, the proof presented by Con itself acknowledges that there is some (although small) correlation between Co2 and temperature. From the fact that I reestablished the credibility of the IPCC reports, I have pointed out the clear bias of the two books presented by Con, I have pointed out the contradictions between the beginning and the end of his answer, I have showed that on Venus the greenhouse effect is really powerful, I have proven that Co2 rise is steady and has no negative feed-back, I conclude that my first position stands and that GW is man-made in a significant degree. Looking forward for another good round. [1] . http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.ucsusa.org... - P. 32 [4] . http://www.newsweek.com... [5] . http://www.geocraft.com...