Anthropogenic global climate change.

"There are some scholarly peer reviewed studies that claim man made global climate change doesn't exist but they are in the vast minority. 'The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' [1]" - Stupidape As I had stated in my Round 3 argument, those consensuses are unreliable as they focus on a small amount of climate scientists and not all of the climate scientists as it is claimed. So you can't say 97% of climate scientists agree because 97% of people in a consensus believe in anthropogenic climate change. "The 800 year lag is a misunderstanding of the Milankovitch cycle. 'The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.' [13]"- Stupidape The lag isn't a misunderstanding; it's evident. If you look at the graph, you can clearly see the lag of CO2 behind temperature [1]. And there have been times where CO2 and temperature went in opposite directions, which contradicts the theory of CO2 affecting temperature. "'Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.' [14]" - Stupidape If you look at the emails in full context, you can see that the scientists manipulated data to prove their research, and knew that global warming wasn't man made [2]. "The scientists were honest, the quotes were out of context. As for your quote from nationalreview, nationalreview is very bias."- Stupidape Actually, according to the website you sourced, National Review has a high rating of factual reporting [3] . "Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is well sourced and mostly factual with news." And it's also hippocritical of you to call me out on bias sources, as your arguments are chock FULL of them. Greenpeace, one of your sources, was categgorized under "Conspiracy-Psudoscience", which is for sources that "publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media." [4], noting on Greenpeace that it is a "Left wing environmental activist group. Strays from science on a few issues, otherwise not too bad." Next is Thinkprogress, which has a large liberal bias. Here's what the media fact checking website said about them: "ThinkProgress is an American political news blog. It is a project of the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. Has a left wing bias in story selection and has failed some fact checks including these from Snopes."[5]. Here you are critisizing me for using a source with a right wing bias, yet you're using a source that actually FAILED factchecks. And finally, there's skeptical science. A website started by and managed by scientist John Cook, famous for, as I pointed out, manipulated information to push his political agenda. "However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education."[6]. As for my argument about Mars, we know enough to say that it isn't the CO2 levels. So with that in mind, and the fact that it is the closest planet to Earth, it throws the argument of man made climate change into question, for if CO2 doesn't raise Mars' temperature, then it can't raise Earth's. Nice debating you. Sources [1]- http://joannenova.com.au... [2]- http://pastebin.com... [3]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [4]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [5]- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... [6]-https://wattsupwiththat.com...