The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
LearnLoveLiveLife
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

A debate on a topic that I am not mentioning in the topic line.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,773 times Debate No: 5016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Alright, to kill the suspense, the topic is "Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions."

I negate of course. Since PRO has the burden, I'll let him go first.
LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

My opponent stated:

Alright, to kill the suspense, the topic is "Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions."

I negate of course. Since PRO has the burden, I'll let him go first.

-----------

Technically, you still have the burden, since you instigated the debate.

But, lets play your game.

The topic is "Global Warming is caused by mankind's actions."

note the topic is not: Global Warming is solely caused by mankind's actions.

Therefore, I state:

As the UN climate committee continues to finalize language in the last installment of a four-part study on global warming to be released Saturday, its draft says there no longer is any doubt mankind is causing global warming and that it is a developing human disaster that needs to be dealt with.

SOURCE: http://www.nj.com...

Need more?

Global warming is made worse by man-made pollution and the scale of the problem is unprecedented in at least 20,000 years, according to a draft report by the world's leading climate scientists.

The leaked assessment by the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity.

A draft copy of the report by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are at the highest for at least 650,000 years.

It predicts that global average temperatures this century will rise by between 2C and 4.5C as a result of the doubling of carbon dioxide levels caused by man-made emissions.

These temperatures could increase by a further 1.5C as a result of "positive feedbacks" in the climate resulting from the melting of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the acidification of the oceans.

The draft report will become the fourth assessment by the IPCC since it was established in 1988 and was meant to be confidential until the final version is ready for publication next year.

However, a copy of the report has been made available by a US government committee and can be found on the internet by anyone who makes an e-mail request for a password to access the area on its website.

The US Climate Change Science Programme, which yesterday released its own report saying climate change was being affected by man-made pollution, said it wanted as many experts and stakeholders as possible to comment on the draft IPCC report.

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, however, did not learn of the decision to, in effect, publish the report until it was posted online, according to the journal Nature. The IPCC assessment is written by scores of scientists - who can draw on the expertise of hundreds more researchers - to produce the most definitive and authoritative assessment of climate change and its impacts.

Global warming sceptics will get little comfort from the confident language in the draft report, which dismisses suggestions that climate change is an entirely natural rather than man-made phenomenon.

"There is widespread evidence of anthropogenic warming of the climate system in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans," it says.

"It is very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 years.

"And it is likely that greenhouse gases alone would have caused more warming than has been observed during this period, with some warming offset by cooling from natural and other anthropogenic factors." Since its last report in 2001, the IPCC's working group says it has amassed convincing evidence showing that climate change is already happening.

It also finds that climate change is set to continue for decades and perhaps centuries to come even if man-made emissions can be curbed.

"2005 and 1998 were the warmest two years on record. Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years (2001-2005)," the report says.

Satellite data since 1978 shows that the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by about 2.7 per cent each decade, with even larger losses of about 7.4 per cent during the warmer summer months.

"The smallest extent of summer sea ice was observed in 2005. Average Arctic temperatures have been rising since the 1960s and 2005 was the warmest Arctic year," the draft IPCC report says.

"An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate, including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation," it says.

Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure.

Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report.

"Anthropogenic forcing, resulting from thermal expansion from ocean warming and glacier and ice sheet melt, is likely the largest contributor to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century," the report says.

"Anthropogenic forcing has likely contributed to recent decreases in Arctic sea ice extent. There is evidence of a decreasing trend in global snow cover and widespread retreat of glaciers consistent with warming and evidence that this melting has also contributed to sea-level rise," it adds.

Evidence of climate change

* Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months.

* Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record.

* Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003.

* Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years.

* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years.

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org...

---------------------------

I have sufficiently proven that mankind's actions are causing global warming.
I'm not sure that there is any rebuttal, but I am willing to see any points my opponent wishes to make.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Okay, I'll take up my burden, I'm just used to PRO first, CON second. Should of just made the topic a negative.
I construct a case, then I'll rebut. But, I would like to mention that the semi-semantics tactic was uncool. Admittedly though, it would have been unwinnable to say that man solely responsible. I should have said the main cause. Anyways, I rambling, so...
The basic support for global warming is that temperatures are rising, and at the same time, greenhouse gases are too. This is a flawed support. My first point is that the form of this support is a common logical fallacy. According to the Encyclopedia of Errors in Reasoning, this fits a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc format. That is, it is saying that because two things occur together, they are causally related. This does not follow. As an example, a graph from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows that global temperatures have increased as the amount of pirates has decreased. They use this to prove that the decrease of piracy has caused global warming. Obviously this is not the case. This is the same format used to "prove" global warming. As CO2 and other gases have increased in the atmosphere, global temperatures have risen. It is a logical fallacy to say that they are in a causal relationship. So right off the bat, global warming is not supported by logic. Obviously, something is a little off here. My next point is that temperature increase is not as dramatic as environmental groups would like you to think. For example, according to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, global temperatures have only risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the end of the Little Ice Age, in 1880. That means we are only one degree warmer than a little Ice Age. Unfortunately, GISS data outside the US is not as accurate as GISS data in the States, and the GISS data from the US alone shows only a third of a degree increase. If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm? Moving on, if we look at Vostok ice core samples from Antarctica, we see that the temperature cycles, and that the current temperature rise started about 25000 years ago, before any industrial pollution occurred. Also, today's temperatures are significantly lower than those that we have seen in other warm periods. Today's temperatures fit perfectly with temperature trends, and are not anomalous or unusual in any way. My third point is that CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise. The Vostok ice core samples which I mentioned earlier also allow scientists to measure CO2 changes in the atmosphere. What we often see, is that CO2 will not correspond with temperature changes, sometimes it goes up while the temperature goes down, and vice versa. Other times, temperature goes up, but CO2 doesn't rise for another thousand years or so. More recently, the GISS data shows a thirty year decrease in temperature in between 1940 and 1970, yet CO2 is rising at the same rate as today. Fourth, according the SYR Appendix Glossary, the greenhouse effect works when the greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds, which they then send out from all sides, including towards the earth's surface. According to NASA climatologists, this means that the upper atmosphere should warm first. NASA has had satellites measuring the upper atmosphere since 1979. NASA satellites however, have shown that the upper atmosphere has maintained a fairly constant temperature since 1979, with a change of about .03 degrees Celsius. My final point is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near enough to significantly change the earth's temperature. The Mauna Loa Observatory has measured the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be about 380 ppm. To put this in perspective, if the atmosphere was a football field, nitrogen would take up 76 yards. Another 20 yards or so would be filled by oxygen. 3.9 of the remaining yards would be filled by various other gases, mostly water vapor, not including CO2 or methane, methane would take up all of the remaining space, except for a pencil line thick space reserved for CO2. This analogy was from Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear. A pencil thick line in a football field is virtually nothing. In fact, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall published an article in Nature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could change earth's cooling processes by less than 1%. So, pretty much, the basic premise of global warming, that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase is completely unsupported by scientific fact.
Sorry for that wall of text there, but anyways...
First my opponent brings up the UN thing. I would like to point out that if it is undoubtable, then how can I provide so much evidence to the contrary? Furthermore, this is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. 60 years ago, the scientific community was in consensus that eugenics was a good idea (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers). Science is pretty much trial and error, so something that is undoubtable just means we should doubt it even more.
Greenhouse gases are at their highest? Again, cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Logical fallacies don't fly here, sorry.
My opponent then provides a 2.5-4.0C degree increase. AS shown by these guys (http://www.skeptic.com...) climate models are just as good as any guess.
Then, my esteemed opponent brings up the fact that recent years have been some of the hottest on record. My opponent neglected to mention that the "record" started in the middle of the little ice age. Obviously being warmer than a little ice age is very frightening, I know, but that does not mean that global warming is a major concern
My opponent then brings up the fact that the Artic ice cap is smaller. Unfortunately for my opponent, this began about 2000 years ago (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers).
"Melting glaciers and polar ice sheets could cause sea levels to rise by up to 43cm by 2100, and the rise for the next two centuries is predicted to be nearly double that figure."
Cool science experiment, fill up a cup of water close to overflowing. Place it on a paper towel. Then add ice until water reaches the brim. Wait a few hours, surprise, the cup has not overflowed, and the towel is dry except for a small amount of water left from condensation. Ice displaces more water than it takes up when it melts.
"Man-made emissions of greenhouse gases have probably already caused the increase in sea levels observed over the past century, says the report."
Sea level measurement is a fiercely debated part of science, and by some measures, sea level has not changed significantly at all (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers).
"* Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 2.7 per cent per decade since 1978 and by 7.4 per cent each decade during the summer months.
* Five of the six warmest years have occurred in the past five years, with 2005 and 1998 being the two warmest years on record.
* Global average sea levels rose at a rate of about 2mm a year between 1961-2003, and by an average of more than 3mm a year between 1993-2003.
* Mountain glaciers and polar land ice have in general melted faster than they have formed over the past 40 years.
* Permafrost temperatures have increased on average and the area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7 per cent over the past 50 years."
*probably, wow, that's convincing, anyways, I've rebutted this already.
*rebutted already
*rebutted already
*I'm not denying that this is occurring, I am saying it has been occurring for 2000 years.
*see above
I've rebutted my opponent, and constructed a fool-proof argument myself. Obviously, you should vote for me.
LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

In this round I will break down my opponents arguments and rebut them.

--

"My first point is that the form of this support is a common logical fallacy. According to the Encyclopedia of Errors in Reasoning, this fits a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc format. That is, it is saying that because two things occur together, they are causally related. This does not follow. As an example, a graph from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows that global temperatures have increased as the amount of pirates has decreased. They use this to prove that the decrease of piracy has caused global warming. Obviously this is not the case."

Yes, you can say this. However it is different once things become statistically significant. I bet that if you did hundreds of trials and vast research on pirates and global warming, you would find that the results are not statistically significant.

However, environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming.

Opponents, such as yourself, either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science.

=----=

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
Sources:
-Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity". Knoxville News Sentinel. --Lindzen, Richard S. (Spring 1992). "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus". Cato Institute Regulation.
-"Global Warning". Washington Post (5 February 2007)
=---=
The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.
Sources:
"Understanding and Responding to Climate Change"
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change December 2006
"Joint Science Academies' Statement"

=---=
"My third point is that CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise."
-Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence.
---

Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. They have issued many reports summarizing the correlation between human industrial activity and global warming.

A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:

"The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." Source: www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742

=---=

Also, Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol.
=---=

My opponent says:
"First my opponent brings up the UN thing. I would like to point out that if it is undoubtable, then how can I provide so much evidence to the contrary?"
-Your evidence was based off of logical contradiction. My evidence is based off of scientific evidence, MASS GLOBAL SUPPORT, multiple worldwide studies, and more.

He also says:
"Furthermore, this is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. 60 years ago, the scientific community was in consensus that eugenics was a good idea (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers). Science is pretty much trial and error, so something that is undoubtable just means we should doubt it even more."
-This is completely your subjective opinion. Please state evidence to support this.

He also says:
"Cool science experiment, fill up a cup of water close to overflowing. Place it on a paper towel. Then add ice until water reaches the brim. Wait a few hours, surprise, the cup has not overflowed, and the towel is dry except for a small amount of water left from condensation. Ice displaces more water than it takes up when it melts."
-Obviously this is true. However you forget to account that the poles are ABOVE WATER as well as below. This is not too significant at the North Pole, as it is approx 90% underwater and 10% above. HOWEVER, antartica is a continent covered in mass amounts of ice. If this ABOVE WATER ice melted into the oceans, they would rise.

Interesting science experiment. Take a cup and fill it to the brim, then place a funnel filled with ice with a hose leading into the cup. I bet you can guess what might happen.

=--=
My opponent said: "I've rebutted my opponent, and constructed a fool-proof argument myself. Obviously, you should vote for me."

My opponents argument was very unstructured and hard to read, however I believe I have summed it up and negated it very well for you. This so-called "fool-proof argument" obviously had some logical fouls in it.

Therefore, you should obviously vote for me.

=---=

In order to win this debate, my opponent will have to provide significant scientific evidence to disprove the MOUNTAIN of evidence that I have shown. He will have to negate all of my points without introducing any new points.

If this is possible, then I still have one round to rebut once again. However, I do not feel that this will be necessary.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"Yes, you can say this. However it is different once things become statistically significant. I bet that if you did hundreds of trials and vast research on pirates and global warming, you would find that the results are not statistically significant.'

Regardless of statistics, it is still a logical fallacy to say that because the rise of manmade greenhouse gases and rise in temperature coincide that they are causally related. Furthermore, what you bet has nothing to do with this debate.

"However, environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often claim virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused warming."

Ooh, appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, I'm so afraid. 60 years ago, the scientific community unanimously agreed that eugenics was the way to go. You know what eugenics is right? It's killing "undesirables" to prevent reproduction.

"Opponents, such as yourself, either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of unsettled science."

I'm actually maintaining the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. So, this is irrelevant. An interesting fact however is that the majority of the scientists opposed to global warming are retired, and are in no need of grants from environmental groups and other parties partial to global warming. The same thing happened with eugenics, which I mentioned earlier. The fact is, scientists will "unanimously agree" because they unanimously want money to pay for their experiments. (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers)

"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion."

Appeals to authority, such as this, are logical fallacies and hold no weight in a rational debate. You should stop using them.

"Attribution of recent climate change discusses how global warming is attributed to anthropogenic GHGs. Correlation of CO2 and temperature is not part of this evidence."

CO2 is considered the main anthropogenic GHG. It is very relevant. If it does not consistently coincide with temperature change, it is definitely not changing temperatures. It is very relevant, and it is a point that you have not refuted at all.

"Further, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations. They have issued many reports summarizing the correlation between human industrial activity and global warming."

Could you please stop using appeals to authority. They're useless.

I'll skip the next two paragraphs, because they are ANOTHER APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!

"Also, Human emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) lead to depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere and intensify ozone holes over the Antarctic. This concept was politically controversial in the 1990s but was broadly accepted in the scientific community (e.g., by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and other national academies); Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and F. Sherwood Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering the chemical mechanism that links CFCs to ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and is widely seen as a model for the Kyoto Protocol."

CFCs have nothing at all to do with this. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"-Your evidence was based off of logical contradiction. My evidence is based off of scientific evidence, MASS GLOBAL SUPPORT, multiple worldwide studies, and more."

Logical contradiction? Me? Look who's calling the kettle black, Mr. Appeal to Authority every chance I get. Furthermore, what contradictions have I made, I don't see any.

"-This is completely your subjective opinion. Please state evidence to support this."

I don't know how a sourced statement is opinion. The only part I can think of that you are talking about is the last sentence, which I also derived from State of Fear.

"-Obviously this is true. However you forget to account that the poles are ABOVE WATER as well as below. This is not too significant at the North Pole, as it is approx 90% underwater and 10% above. HOWEVER, Antartica is a continent covered in mass amounts of ice. If this ABOVE WATER ice melted into the oceans, they would rise."

I would and could debate this, but I won't, because this is irrelevant to the debate. Also, the GISS station in Punta Arenas, the closest city in the world to Anartica, has actually shown a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature since 1888, when it opened. So, the ice cap probably won't even melt.

"My opponents argument was very unstructured and hard to read, however I believe I have summed it up and negated it very well for you. This so-called "fool-proof argument" obviously had some logical fouls in it."

My argument was hard to read, and maybe a little disorganized, but that has nothing to do with anything. You have not negated it at all, except for an irrelevant point on sea-levels. You have provided fallacious arguments yourself, and have shown no "logical fouls" in my arguments, enough of this self-righteous BS.

Here's a list of my points that have not been rebutted at all.
The globe isn't actually even warming up.

Our current temperature increase started 25000 years ago, before man had even began producing these gases.

CO2 and other GHG changes often do not correspond with the temperature changes that they should produce if they were responsible for warming and cooling the earth (not including water vapor).

Upper atmosphere is not warming as it should if GHGs were to blame.

GHG production is not significantly enough to change the world temperature.

Points of my constructive that were negated

oops, you dropped all of my points
Yeah, you negated my argument pretty well, you only dropped 5 major points that I made.

My opponent's points that I have refuted.

majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming-- I said that this was a logical fallacy in R2, my rebuttal has not been addressed, so you extend my rebuttal to that point.

5 of the lst six years have been the hottest on record-- I said that the record started in the middle of the little ice age, so this is not significant. This rebuttal was also neglected by my opponent, so again, my rebuttal is extended.

Artic sea ice is melting-- I said that this has been occurring for over 2000 years, and my opponent again dropped my rebuttal, so my rebuttal is flowed across yet again.

sea levels are rising-- I said that sea levels are a disputed scientific question, and surprise surprise, my opponent dropped this rebuttal. I again get my rebuttal flowed forward.

ice is melting faster than it is forming-- I said that this is a natural occurrence that often occurs, and has been for 2000 years, again dropped so I get flowed across.

permafrost temperatures are increasing-- I said the same thing I said about ice melting, and again, the point was dropped, you know what to do.

Opponent's points I did not address in R2--
cricket, cricket

Opponent's points that I have not thouroughly rebutted

sea-levels would rise if Antartica melts
LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

My opponent and his clever skills in logic have proven me to be wrong. Perhaps I may clarify some things.

My opponent claims,

"Regardless of statistics, it is still a logical fallacy to say that because the rise of manmade greenhouse gases and rise in temperature coincide that they are causally related. Furthermore, what you bet has nothing to do with this debate."

-You are partially right. It would be a logical fallacy for me to make this claim. However, once it is backed up with statistically significant data it becomes a deductive argument.

"Ooh, appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, I'm so afraid. 60 years ago, the scientific community unanimously agreed that eugenics was the way to go. You know what eugenics is right? It's killing "undesirables" to prevent reproduction."

- Prime example of an ad hominem attack. You claim that my appeals to authority are logical fallacies. However, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. However, you have only stated that my arguments are logical fallacies, and not given any hard evidence proving otherwise.

"I'm actually maintaining the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong. So, this is irrelevant. An interesting fact however is that the majority of the scientists opposed to global warming are retired, and are in no need of grants from environmental groups and other parties partial to global warming. The same thing happened with eugenics, which I mentioned earlier. The fact is, scientists will "unanimously agree" because they unanimously want money to pay for their experiments. (State of Fear, 2003 HarperCollinsPublishers)"

-This is a Non Sequitur Fallacy of False Cause. You assume that scientists are wanting money for experiments, which causes unanimous agreement on issues. This is just as much of a fallacy as any I have claimed.

"Appeals to authority, such as this, are logical fallacies and hold no weight in a rational debate. You should stop using them."

-I am simply stating facts. There is no logical fallacy unless I have made an unreasonable claim based on the appeal to authority I have suggested.

"CO2 is considered the main anthropogenic GHG. It is very relevant. If it does not consistently coincide with temperature change, it is definitely not changing temperatures. It is very relevant, and it is a point that you have not refuted at all."

-It may be relevant, however I believe "definitely not changing temperatures" is quite the bold claim. Actually, that is a logical fallacy. You cannot make the claim that it is not changing temperatures based on your data there.

"Could you please stop using appeals to authority. They're useless.

I'll skip the next two paragraphs, because they are ANOTHER APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!"

-Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1.Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2.Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3.Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim.
OH WAIT. IM QUOTING EXPERTS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD.

"CFCs have nothing at all to do with this. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-Great non-factual completely subjective opinion-based claim.

"Logical contradiction? Me? Look who's calling the kettle black, Mr. Appeal to Authority every chance I get. Furthermore, what contradictions have I made, I don't see any."
-You made just as many logical fallacies as I did. And mine were all legit appeals to authority simply stating facts taken as truth by trained experts.

"The only part I can think of that you are talking about is the last sentence, which I also derived from State of Fear."
-I hear using one source is a pretty reliable way to gather and present information. Oh wait. It's not.

"I would and could debate this, but I won't, because this is irrelevant to the debate. Also, the GISS station in Punta Arenas, the closest city in the world to Anartica, has actually shown a .5 degree Celsius decrease in temperature since 1888, when it opened. So, the ice cap probably won't even melt."
-Would've, could've, should've, DIDN'T. How can you assume "so, the ice cap probably won't even melt"? What if it does and all polar animals die out, the lower lying coastlines flood, and hundreds of thousands of people die. This sounds great in theory.

"My argument was hard to read, and maybe a little disorganized, but that has nothing to do with anything. You have not negated it at all, except for an irrelevant point on sea-levels. You have provided fallacious arguments yourself, and have shown no "logical fouls" in my arguments, enough of this self-righteous BS."
-I could say the same to you? other than the fact that my argument is very structured, I negated may of your points, and I'm not even sure I could find all of your original points in that unorganized wall of text. I debated against your points to the best of my ability.

-----------------------
"The globe isn't actually even warming up."
-"The solar cycle has dropped temperatures about 0.1�C in the past decade. ENSO added about 0.15�C to the 1998 peak. The PDO may be having an effect now but its magnitude is uncertain. If we subtracted out all of that "noise," human-caused global warming appears to be about 0.1�C to 0.2�C a decade as predicted."
http://climateprogress.org...

"Our current temperature increase started 25000 years ago, before man had even began producing these gases."
-True, there are natural cycles. But recent increases in temperatures have been much greater than predicted.

"CO2 and other GHG changes often do not correspond with the temperature changes that they should produce if they were responsible for warming and cooling the earth (not including water vapor)."
-Show me some sort of evidence supporting this claim? Here's some against it for you: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Don't claim wikipedia is bs blah blah blah. They list a source for where it came from.

"Upper atmosphere is not warming as it should if GHGs were to blame."
-The ozone layer traps heat, so if it gets destroyed, the upper atmosphere actually cools, thereby offsetting part of the warming effect of other heat-trapping gases. But that's no reason to rejoice: the cooling of the upper layers of the atmosphere can produce changes in the climate that affect weather patterns in the higher latitudes.
Source: http://www.ucsusa.org...

"GHG production is not significantly enough to change the world temperature."
-Actually, it is and will continue to. As china grows as a world leader and begins burning more fossils fuels, we (USA) will remain as a world leader. We will continue to produce GHG's at a steady or increasing rate, as will the rest of the world as it continues to develop.

---
Since burden of proof lies upon the instigator, you had to PROVE that mankind hasn't had any cause in global warming
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Not a "silver-bullet" argument technically, but his core intent is to point out that action is better than inaction.

The Stern Review points out that the sooner we act, the smaller the economic consequences and the greater the environmental benefits. http://en.wikipedia.org...

The IPCC continue be unwavering in their belief in the consequences of inaction which they believe to be a temperature rise this century of ~2 - 6ºC. http://www.ipcc.ch...
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Woot, on he goes.

Excluded middle
Fallacy of multiplication
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
I got to 2mins and laughed.

Argument from intimidation
Slippery slope
Appeal to consequences

And a whooooooole lotta ipse dixit.
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Watch this,

has to do with global warming, changed my views completely.
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
quit debating after the fact. they can read.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
here it is for those who are lazy.
Here's a list of my points that have not been rebutted at all.
The globe isn't actually even warming up.

Our current temperature increase started 25000 years ago, before man had even began producing these gases.

CO2 and other GHG changes often do not correspond with the temperature changes that they should produce if they were responsible for warming and cooling the earth (not including water vapor).

Upper atmosphere is not warming as it should if GHGs were to blame.

GHG production is not significantly enough to change the world temperature.

Points of my constructive that were negated

oops, you dropped all of my points
Yeah, you negated my argument pretty well, you only dropped 5 major points that I made.

My opponent's points that I have refuted.

majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming-- I said that this was a logical fallacy in R2, my rebuttal has not been addressed, so you extend my rebuttal to that point.

5 of the lst six years have been the hottest on record-- I said that the record started in the middle of the little ice age, so this is not significant. This rebuttal was also neglected by my opponent, so again, my rebuttal is extended.

Artic sea ice is melting-- I said that this has been occurring for over 2000 years, and my opponent again dropped my rebuttal, so my rebuttal is flowed across yet again.

sea levels are rising-- I said that sea levels are a disputed scientific question, and surprise surprise, my opponent dropped this rebuttal. I again get my rebuttal flowed forward.

ice is melting faster than it is forming-- I said that this is a natural occurrence that often occurs, and has been for 2000 years, again dropped so I get flowed across.

permafrost temperatures are increasing-- I said the same thing I said about ice melting, and again, the point was dropped, you know what to do.

Opponent's points I did not address in R2--
cricket, cricket

Exactly.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Read bottom of my Round three post.

I definitely won this debate
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
If both of our arguments are false because they are fallacies, I still win because the burden was not on me.

If not, I still had plenty of factual information to support my claims and rebutted my opponent on nearly all points.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Given that the debate is effectively: "Mankind causes some global warming"
The fact that we breathe out CO2 and produce heat just by living should be enough for PRO to win.

That we extract 84,000,000 barrels of oil per day and burn 2/3rds of it, and
that we extract 17,000,000 tonnes of coal per day and burn an even greater proportion of it
should imply that we add more than a little heat to the globe, what?
Posted by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
The Wall of Text was too strong.

Maybe if I had some "Enter" spaces...
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Josh 8 years ago
Josh
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by surfride 8 years ago
surfride
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
LR4N6FTW4EVALearnLoveLiveLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30