Anthropogenic global climate change.

Round four defense"This argument that a consensus proves anything is preposterous, for a multitude of reasons. Number one, the consensus cited. This consensus reviewed 928 abstracts published in scientific journals. 928 is a somewhat large number, but not large enough to make a point off of, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of scientists in this field in the U.S alone [1]. Number two, consensuses are not reliable arguments, especially in the world of science. Scientists had consensuses on many things that turned out to be wrong, such as that saccharin led to cancer, and that the Sun's energy was a requirement for life. This consensus on climate change could be wrong as well." RepconFirst my opponent states there are hundreds of thousands of scientists within this field. That may be true, but considering each journal interviews has multiple scientist opinions changes the numbers. Furthermore, science magazine was not the only source I used. Finally, my opponent links to a long article in his/her source #1. My opponent has not met his/her burden of proof by quoting the relevant information. Having me proof a negative, that the information is not within the source would put an unfair burden on me."he consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers" [5]As seen here there are 11,944 abstracts reviewed in this article. As for the consensus changing, my opponent is correct, that science does come to incorrect conclusions and theories are changed to meet the new information. Despite this, this not a coin flip situation. The probability is very high that the scientists are correct in their current assessment. That man-made global climate change is real. "In the report I just showed about death rates from weather-related disasters, Indur M. Goklany goes into that exact study, and debunks it, saying that,"Notably, the contribution of extreme events to the mortality burden for accidental causes of death is also small (at 0.4 percent)."Saying that we need to double down on climate change because it is .4% of the reason for accidental deaths (Not even a full percentage) is quite ridiculous.Goklany also says that,"Although the review paper"s estimates for non-flood related deaths are problematic, if one accepts them as valid, that means that climate change currently accounts for less than 0.3 percent of all global deaths. Accordingly, based on current contributions to the global mortality burden, other public health issues outrank climate change."This furthers the point that cracking down on global warming for something so small is preposterous. But even putting the argument aside, it doesn't even fit in with what is supposed to be debated." RepconEven .2% of all global deaths would be a lot. Considering "5.9 million children under age five died in 2015,16 000 every day " [17].2% of 5.9 million might not seem like a lot percentage wise, yet the absolute number of 11, 800 children under five annually is still high. An analogy would be that homicides involving guns don't make up even the top ten list of all cause mortality. Still, people tend to get upset about these deaths. Furthermore, showing people died from a cause is a good way to show that cause exists. Humans care about each other.My opponent then delves into whether not a scientific consensus occurred. I find this part of the argument confusing and difficult to follow. The fact that my opponent used pastebin only further complicates the matter. My opponent claims that the true consensus number is .3% as opposed to 97.1%. I doubt science magazine missed up by such a large error or any of the other scholarly peer reviewed articles. "Yes, because of the regulations being put on the fossil fuel industry by the government in an attempt to stop something that is naturally occurring. So this isn't a fault of the industry- it's the government that's implementing the regulations that would drive the industry to the ground. Like the article itself said," RepconI can understand the fossil fuel industries objections, but the fossil fuel industry appears to spreading misinformation. Most likely you are in denial about man-made global climate change is due to this misinformation campaign."Again, this has NOTHING to do with what is supposed to be discussed. It doesn't prove that global warming is man made, so it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place." RepconI've already proven global climate change exists, I'm only showing why there are still deniers. "First off, it is unknown if the Koch Brothers' donations led to any biases in research. As for the scientist who is claimed to be biased, his research is supported by data looking at the sun activity and temperature over the last 100 years [6], like I presented in my Round 2 argument. And if you're bringing up funding biases, you might as well bring up the fact that the government participates in the same thing." RepconYes, but independent studies have also verified government research. "An independent study of global temperature records has reaffirmed previous conclusions by climate scientists that global warming is real." [19]"Our energy policy is not rigged to help the oil industries. If anything, it's rigged AGAINST the fossil fuel industry. We have regulations that, as stated before, will destroy the fossil fuel industry," RepconThe oil industry seems to be just fine. Just the fact that they could lose 33 trililon dollars shows their wealth and influence."First off, there are no crimes committed, and you haven't provided a source to back it up. Second off, jailing climate deniers is unconstitutional. One reason is known as the first amendment, which grants freedom of speech [8]. Another reason is that the U.S. isn't a facist government, and pretty much goes against facism, so good luck trying to get deniers arrested. Nice try, though." RepconThe climate change deniers are selling false information. They are committing fraud just for starters. "Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result." [20]Number five, injury to the alleged victim as a result, many people die annually from anthropogenic climate change. This is fraud that results in the death of the victim. This is immoral. The first amendment does not protect criminals from commiting fraud. If anyone is the fascist here it is the fossil fuel industry. The poor get hit the hardest, minorities tend to be poorer. This could be seen as the mass murder of minorities on the fossil fuel industries part. Sources.17. http://www.who.int...18. https://skepticalscience.com...19. http://www.cnn.com...20. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...