The Instigator
WriterDave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 23720
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

WriterDave

Con

This is an exhibition debate. Do not vote on this debate.


The reality of anthropogenic global warming stands in opposition with the notions of un- or under-restricted capitalism and industrial freedoms, a core component of right-wing and strict libertarian ideology. This is reflected in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary: except for Huntsman, all Iowa Caucus candidates deny AGW, or at least express skepticism about it. (Romney accepted AGW in June of 2011, but changed his mind four months later.) This issue is thus not easily separable from mainstream conservatism.

I therefore invite any interested conservative or libertarian on DDO to accept this debate and to select one of the following resolutions:


A) Resolved: Global warming is not taking place.

B) Resolved: Human activities do not significantly contribute to global warming.


Having chosen one of the resolutions, the person who accepts this debate will have the burden of proof to establish and defend the resolution. If my opponent chooses Resolution B, it will be assumed that global warming is taking place.

Rules:

1) Having the burden of proof, my opponent may make his argument in this opening round, thus having the first and last word. To compensate for this, my opponent's closing statement should not exceed the unused character space in his first two statements. To put it another way, my opponent's total character count for the debate should not exceed 16,000.

2) Sources may be placed on a separate page, but this page must be used only for sources; not for argument or commentary of any kind.

3) There should be no images in the body of debate. Links to images may be inserted as parentheticals to arguments. For instance: "this image (link) shows a 50-year trend of decreasing ice in this region." Such a link should be only to the picture itself (a file usually ending in .jpg or .gif), not to a website.

4) No semantics.

5) Unless one of the debaters obviously fails to comply in good faith with these rules, there should be no voting on this debate. Any votes cast should be countered to ensure an even score at the end, unless there is a firm consensus that one of the debaters has committed an egregious rules violation. (Round forfeiture or concession shall not be grounds for uneven voting.)
yuiru

Pro

I accept the challenge to this debate.

I must clarify, I am not an interested conservative or libertarian, so may I choose those option whilst being uninvited?

If so I pick B) because it seems more interesting.

Otherwise I will be arguing for Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial in a general sense.

I promise not to: write to much characters, coment my source on other pages, use images, study language meaning, or vote on the debate.


Debate Round No. 1
WriterDave

Con

I was expecting Pro to make an argument for Resolution B in his opening statement, since he bears the burden of proof. Since he has not done so, I will present a brief prima facie case against the Resolution. I disclaim that by doing so, I in no way assume the burden of proof with regard to the resolution; Pro bears the responsibility to refute my case and to present a case in favor of the resolution.

For purposes of this debate, it is stipulated that global warming is taking place. The instant question is, are humans a significant contributing factor?


A) Carbon dioxide has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. These account for, respectively, 99%, 1%, and 1 trillionth of the CO2 in the atmosphere (14C being radioactive).

Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C:12C ratio in plants is about 2% lower than in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, which largely consist of ancient plants, thus results in a decrease in atmospheric 13C:12C ratio, which is exactly what we have been observing since the Industrial Revolution.[1]

The only known source of carbon outgassing with such a low 13C:12C ratio is volcanic activity, and human activities release about 130 times the CO2 as volcanic activity every year.[2]


B) The ratio of 14C:12C, as measured in tree ring data, steadily decreased from the Industrial Revolution until after World War II, during which the amount of 14C in the air was steady (after WW2, nuclear testing increased the 14C in the air). This is clear evidence that 12C increased during this period which coincided with industrialization.[3]

By how much has it increased? From 1751 until 2006, humans have emitted an estimated 329,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 329 billion. Moreover, about half of those emissions come from the last three decades.[4]


C) Apart from fossil fuel burning, common sense dictates another source of increased CO2: since before 1800, land clearance has resulted in dramatically fewer plants in the world, which in turn results in less carbon absorbsion, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere. This image (http://bit.ly...) shows the estimated anthropogenic carbon sources from both land clearance and fossil fuel burning since about 1750.


In light of A, B and C, there is no plausible explanation for the sharp amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere other than human activities. So, how do we know that CO2 is a significant cause of the observed global warming?


D) Satellites have been observing the amount of Earth's heat escaping into space, particularly at the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs heat. That amount has decreased.[1] Surface measurements observe heat at those same wavelengths spreading downward to the surface.[5]

E) A CO2-caused greenhouse effect would have certain consequences: for instance, that the planet would be warming faster during the night than during the day, that the stratosphere and ionosphere would be cooling, and that the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere) would be rising. All of these effects are presently being observed.[6][7][8][9]



Although this debate does allow a separate pages for sources, there is sufficient room in this statement to list my sources below:

[1] IPCC, "Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change," Solomon, S. et al., eds. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
[2] United States Geological Survey "Volcanic gases and their effects." Retrieved April 19, 2010 from USGS Web site: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...
[3] Ruddiman, W.F., Earth's Climate: Past and Future, 2nd. ed.. (W. H. Freeman & Co, 2008).
[4] Boden, T.A., et al, "Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel co2 emissions." Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy (2009).
[5] Wang, K. et al, "Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008," Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (2009).
[6] Alexander, L.V., et al, "Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation
J. Geophys. Res., 2006, 111, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.
[7] Jones, G.S, et al, "Causes of atmospheric temperature change 1960-2000: A combined attribution analysis," Geophysical Research Letters 30, 1228, 4 pp. (2003)
[8] Santer, B.D., et al, "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes," Science 301 (2003), pp. 479-483.
[9] Lastovicka, J., et al, "Global Change in the Upper Atmophere," Science 314 (2006), pp. 1253-1254.
yuiru

Pro

yuiru forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
WriterDave

Con

Extend my previous statement.

A reminder that this is an exhibition debate; please do not vote unless an egregious rules violation has taken place. (Round forfeitures do not count.)
yuiru

Pro

Please forgive me honorable WriterDave.

In any case I will do the do.

So far I have:
Approximately 361 characters.

"A) Carbon dioxide has three isotopes: 12C, 13C and 14C. These account for, respectively, 99%, 1%, and 1 trillionth of the CO2 in the atmosphere (14C being radioactive).

Plants prefer 12C over 13C. The 13C:12C ratio in plants is about 2% lower than in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels, which largely consist of ancient plants, thus results in a decrease in atmospheric 13C:12C ratio, which is exactly what we have been observing since the Industrial Revolution.[1]

The only known source of carbon outgassing with such a low 13C:12C ratio is volcanic activity, and human activities release about 130 times the CO2 as volcanic activity every year.[2]
"

First off you are obviously a very scholarly person. Second, I don't know what you are saying...
Third...
This is a big hunk of statements, not arguments.


"B) The ratio of 14C:12C, as measured in tree ring data, steadily decreased from the Industrial Revolution until after World War II, during which the amount of 14C in the air was steady (after WW2, nuclear testing increased the 14C in the air). This is clear evidence that 12C increased during this period which coincided with industrialization.[3]

By how much has it increased? From 1751 until 2006, humans have emitted an estimated 329,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That's 329 billion. Moreover, about half of those emissions come from the last three decades.[4]"

This is merely coincidental correlation, where does this affirm humans are a major contributing factor.

"C) Apart from fossil fuel burning, common sense dictates another source of increased CO2: since before 1800, land clearance has resulted in dramatically fewer plants in the world, which in turn results in less carbon absorbsion, which means more CO2 in the atmosphere. This image (http://bit.ly......) shows the estimated anthropogenic carbon sources from both land clearance and fossil fuel burning since about 1750.

In light of A, B and C, there is no plausible explanation for the sharp amount of CO2 increase in the atmosphere other than human activities. So, how do we know that CO2 is a significant cause of the observed global warming?"

That is both a false dilemma and appeal to authority.
For number C, the main problem is this:
We got no klout to believe to think that just because the common sense says this slippery slope is good, it is good.


"D) Satellites have been observing the amount of Earth's heat escaping into space, particularly at the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs heat. That amount has decreased.[1] Surface measurements observe heat at those same wavelengths spreading downward to the surface.[5]"

Okay... You win...

"E) A CO2-caused greenhouse effect would have certain consequences: for instance, that the planet would be warming faster during the night than during the day, that the stratosphere and ionosphere would be cooling, and that the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere) would be rising. All of these effects are presently being observed.[6][7][8][9]"

Nope... Nope...

I disagree, this does not prove humans nothing....

Just look at me for an example... When have I ever climate changed the earth? Not once, that's right.

What you are trying to say is, the human crossed the road to create global warming.

But I am a denialist mind you, I refuse to believe your claims... Mostly because I don't want to.

Second... Not only second but fifthly...
Warming during the night is very good! How does that prove your argument? It's also best the stratosphere is cool chill bro.


Green host whatever, is mostly cause by vapor from a deadly substance know as Dihydrogen Monoxide, not C02.
This is because CO2 is obese.

I think this is a complete overrating of global warming, which is actually good thing!!!!


I have no argument!

http://www.co2science.org...
http://wattsupwiththat.com...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
I had one freaking second left >:(
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I would debate WD on this on a later date
No votes have been placed for this debate.