The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,031 times Debate No: 26716
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Magic8000

Pro

Definitions

Anthropogenic
an"thro"po"gen"ic/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/
Adjective:
(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) Originating in human activity.

Global warming

an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution

3 days to post
4 rounds
8000 Characters
No insulting
Start argument against GW in the first round
Muted

Con

I accept. Pro asks me to begin arguments in the first round. I will assume a uniformitarian scale. I will argue against the resolution, not against GW per say.

Historical Context:
Global climate change (GCC) has been occurring for a long time [1]. Temperature measurements show that the Earth was much hotter in the past. This is evidently shown in the graph [1]. The Earth was also much colder in the past [2]. It occurred around 200,000-100,000 years ago. At these periods in time, humans were unable to emit greenhouse gases. Thus, GCC was not caused by humans. If GCC was not caused by humans then, it is logical to conclude that something else can cause it now.

There is also the case of the medieval warm and cold period [3]. The planet was warmer in many places, and cooler in others. Vikings were able to settle Greenland and plantation of grapes in YorkShire occurred.
There was also the case of the European coldsnap earlier this year [4], which made me think, "global cooling!"

Current Global warming trend: Global surface temperature has increased by approximately 0.2 degrees celsius each decade for the past 30 years. [5]
Effects: Rising sea levels: There have been a gradual rise in sea levels over the years [6], at about 3.5 mm/year.

Glacier melting: There is evidence that glaciers have been melting ever since the last "little Ice age" of 1850.

Greenhouse effect: What is a greenhouse gas? Methane, water vapor, Carbon dioxide, and ozone.
The water vapor is easy to understand. As the Earth heats up, the oceans evaporate and vapors scatter into the air. Methane is harmful to the environment, but is not in such great quantities as Carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is my favorite, I produce it every second. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 enrichment actually helps vegetation growth [7] by an almost 30% increase in productivity.

Human activity supposedly linked to GW:
Burning of fossil fuels: The usage of fossil fuels has a direct correlation with the rise of temperature.

Conclusion: I do not dispute that the Earth is growing warmer. It was so much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs than now. This could not have been due to man. There were Ice ages. These were certainly not the result of man"s activities.
The globe has been warming ever since 1850, the last mini ice age. It was warm several centuries before that. This shows that temperature is cyclic.

I will now argue that there is a correlation between human activity and the current rise in global temperatures. If we plotted a graph showing how much greenhouse gas humans emit through their activity, alongside a graph of the rise in sea levels, and a graph of temperature rise for whatever data we have from 1850, the correlation is obvious.

Now I will contend that human activity is not the cause of rise in temperature. No experiments has been made to prove this. If there was, I would like to know which other planets were used as experimenting ground.

1. http://www.grida.no...
2. http://geography.about.com...
3. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
5. http://www.pnas.org...
6. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
7. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. We must ask why climate has changed in the past. There are many ways the Earth's climate can be affected. Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms.

It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change. It's like saying humans can't start brushfires because they happen naturally. In this day we are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an increasingly rapid rate.

During the Cretaceous period submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup also resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents[1]

There has been evidence that suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today in some parts of the globe like the North Atlantic. However, evidence also suggest that in some places were much cooler than today, such as the tropical pacific. When the warm places were averaged out with the cool places, it is clear that the overall warmth was probably similar to the early mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions[2]. Further evidence suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.[3]

Here is the temperature pattern of the MWP vs today.







The carbon plants collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line.

C02 does help plants, yet an abundance of it is harmful. Here is only 2 examples out of many.

1.Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis[4] in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage[5] to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2. Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat[6].

2. As is confirmed by long-term experiments[7], plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

Please see the video on the right for more information



There is evidence that shows humans are the cause of global warming Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[8]


1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[9]. Of course, it could be coincidence that CO2 levels are rising so sharply at the same time so let's look at more evidence that we're responsible for the rise in CO2 levels.

2.When we measure the type of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere, we observe more of the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [10].

3.This is corroborated by measurements of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen levels are falling in line with the amount of carbon dioxide rising, just as you'd expect from fossil fuel burning which takes oxygen out of the air to create carbon dioxide [11].

4.Further independent evidence that humans are raising CO2 levels comes from measurements of carbon found in coral records going back several centuries. These find a recent sharp rise in the type of carbon that comes from fossil fuels [12].

5.So we know humans are raising CO2 levels. What's the effect? Satellites measure less heat escaping out to space, at the particular wavelengths that CO2 absorbs heat, thus finding "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". [13][14][15]


This shows that temperature is cyclic.

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


The Resolution is affirmed.

Sources

[1] Caldeira, K., and Rampino, M.R., 1991, The mid-Cretaceous superplume, carbon dioxide, and global warming: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 18, no. 6, p. 987-990.
[2]http://books.nap.edu...
[3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
[4]http://resources.metapress.com...
[5]http://www.pnas.org...
[6]http://www.sciencemag.org...
[7]http://www.nature.com...
[8]http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[9]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...
[10]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
[11]Ibid
[12]http://www.sciencemag.org...
[13]http://www.nature.com...
[14]http://spiedl.aip.org...
[15]http://www.eumetsat.eu...
Muted

Con

"Something such as the sun getting brighter causing the planet to receive more energy and warms. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the planet warms."

When there are more greenhouse gases, sunlight will be prevented from heating the Earth due to the Greenhouse effect. Thus in the long term, the Earth will experience an ice age due to the ultimate reduction in heat energy. When the fuel has been used up, the heat levels will gradually decrease. This is the cause for cyclic nature of global climate change.

"It's true in the past climate change was caused by natural forces, but this doesn't mean we cannot cause climate change."

Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground.

A more likely explanation for the warmth of the Cretaceous period is the methane generated by the huge amounts of vegetation rotting in the huge dinosaurs digestive systems. Methane is a greenhouse gas. The dinosaurs were then wiped out by meteor impacts, sparing the other animals the cost of living with those methane factories. Or was it because dinosaurs were considered a threat for producing so much greenhouse gas and so were wiped out?

I absolutely do not get the link between CO2 buildup and continental drift.

Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced.

I have nothing to dispute in Pro"s explanation of CO2 usage.

1. Pro"s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research?
The rise in CO2 is hardly sudden and the link to [5] is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene"Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants. I agree that the nutritional quality of SOME plants may decrease.

2. Simple explanation to remove the "threat." Fertilization. Nitrogen is relatively easy to synthesize [1]. Nitrogen is widely used as a fertilizer in the form of ammonium nitrate. There is also the Haber process, which I assume you are familiar with. These negate the "threat" from human activity. More vegetation means that more vegetation would be destroyed means that nitrogen would be recycled at a faster rate.

I will not respond to the video.

1-5:
I have debunked all of the claims that elevated CO2 levels is harmful to plants. I have shown a way around the nitrogen plateau problem.
Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat" to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this.

Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides.

Pro"s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed.

1. http://www.organic-chemistry.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

 Greenhouse gases reflect heat radiation back towards the Earths surface. The sun produces short wave radiation[1]. It's not affected by the molecules of GG so it continues uninterrupted to our surface. When it hits the surface, some of the energy is absorbed and the rest is reflected back as infrared radiation. This frequency causes the molecules of some gasses&;nbsp; to vibrate which in turn redirects heat in all directions including towards other vibrating molecules. Therefore more heat is retained in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses.




"Is this meant to indicate that we are not natural? I hope not. Fossil fuels form naturally. They sometimes burn naturally. Helping to burn these fuels is not unnatural, just like lions culling a sick antelope from an otherwise healthy herd. There is no evident benefit of keeping coal in the ground."

I think you know what I mean by "natural";. Does a natural burning produce as much carbon as we do? If burning fossil fuels was naturally that doesn&;rsquo;t mean we should burn them. Forest fire happen naturally yet it&;rsquo;s not good if we constantly start them.

“Pro basically repeats me on the medieval warm period. I agree about the temperatures. Nothing to dispute there besides to note that the current temperatures are below even Miocene era levels, when volcanic activity has reduced.”

I didn&;rsquo;t just repeat you, I said that today our global climate is more than the medieval warm period&;rsquo;s was. Some parts are warmer, but the global temperature is warmer. Miocene levels were due to the shape of the ocean basins at that time. Allowing warm temperatures to persist despite low levels of carbon dioxide[2]

1.”. Pro";s [4] is a link to a picture of a section of a paper from 4-5 years before reports on the benefits of elevated CO2 levels. Does Pro agree that later research is better than older research?”

There are some benefits, but do you have any paper proving this one wrong?

“is to an article analyzing "Sharply increased insect herbivory during the Paleocene";Eocene Thermal Maximum," not the effect of CO2 on plants. It is an analysis of the insect diet, not on how CO2 levels destroyed plants&;rdquo;

Yes, this is evidence from the past of major damage. As the link was suppose to show.
 
Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects. Plant defenses go down as CO2 levels go up [3]

 2.  It&;rsquo;s a simple to say just increase water, nitrogen, fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person's diet won't lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements. As I said as CO2 increases run up against limited availability of other nutrients. We synthesize nitrogen using non-renewable fossil fuels, which increase CO2 causing us to synthesize more and more nitrogen for the plants. That&;rsquo;s not efficient at all. You mentioned the Haber process. Yes it's possible to convert renewable biomass so we can synthesize nitrogen. However the amount of land and even more resources (often including fertilizer) required to do this gets prohibitive.

Even if CO2 increases plant growth, this doesn&;rsquo;t mean we should want or need more of it. We need to examine the other effects of increased CO2. Just like if a doctor tells you to take 1 pill, that doesn&;rsquo;t mean 4 pills will be better for you.

“Thus, an elevation in CO2 would not be a "threat"; to the Earth. Therefore, Pro has not fulfilled his BoP to show why Man-made global warming is a threat. There is no indication of this.”

  •     Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt [4]
  •     Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps [5]
  •     Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [6]
  •     Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen [7]
  •     Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem[8]
  •     Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier&;nbsp; [9]
  •     Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [10][11]
  •     Inhibiting plankton development, disruption of carbon cycle [12]
  •     Increased moralities of sea urchins [13]
  •     Threat to fish populations [14]
  •     Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply [15][16]
  •     Contribution to rising sea levels [17][18][19]


 “Satellite data do not record the decrease in sun-heat coming to Earth. The process is the same for both sides.”

What do you mean?

“Pro";s opposition to cyclic temperature has been addressed.”

I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming

The resolution is affirmed

Sources
1 http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.LWSW
2 Jonathan P. LaRiviere, A. Christina Ravelo, Allison Crimmins, Petra S. Dekens, Heather L. Ford, Mitch Lyle, Michael W. Wara. Late Miocene decoupling of oceanic warmth and atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing. Nature, 2012; 486 (7401): 97 DOI: 10.1038/nature11200
3 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
4 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/313/5789/940.pdf
5 http://oem.bmj.com/content/64/12/827.short
6 http://www.decvar.org/documents/epstein.pdf
7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480488/
8&;nbsp; http://www.pnas.org/content/104/30/12395.abstract
9&;nbsp; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1146663
10 http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
11 http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/65/3/414
12 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/FC3/81/ExeterpaperProofsTurelyetal.pdf
13 http://www.eur-oceans.eu/WP9/Factsheets/FS7/papers/Miles%20et%20al%202007.pdf
14 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12930
15 http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdf
16 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/328/5984/1382
17 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;321/5894/1340
18 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/04/0907765106.full.pdf+html
19 http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
Muted

Con

I will now do something weird. I will, for argument"s sake, concede GW and concentrate on whether or not it is a threat.

"Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt."
This is data from only a small portion of a continent on a big Earth. It is not possible to conclude from this that wildfires is happening everywhere. This data is correlated to higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, but is not certain that is the cause.

"Increased deaths to heatwaves - 5.74% increase to heatwaves compared to 1.59% to cold snaps "
Results: Mortality increases associated with both extreme cold (2-day cumulative increase 1.59% (95% CI 0.56 to 2.63)) and extreme heat (5.74% (95% CI 3.38 to 8.15)) were found, the former being especially marked for myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest deaths. The increase in mortality was less marked at less extreme temperatures. The effect of extreme cold (defined as a percentile) was homogeneous across cities with different climates, suggesting that only the unusualness of the cold temperature (and not its absolute value) had a substantial impact on mortality (that is, acclimatization to cold). Conversely, heat effects were quite heterogeneous, with the largest effects observed in cities with milder summers, less air conditioning and higher population density. Adjustment for ozone led to similar results, but some residual confounding could be present due to other uncontrolled pollutants.
Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatization to heat is still incomplete. (From your source)
My own conclusion from this is that the density of American cities and people, and the lack of air-conditioning, leading to "stuffyness," is the cause of "heat deaths." Not heatwaves per say.

"Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever."
Mosquite? Is that such a threat? I deal with the possibility of getting those viruses every day. (I live near the equator, and seriously, there is no need to panic.)

"Increase in occurrence of allergic symptoms due to rise in allergenic pollen."
The cited source is a clear support for my previous assertion of greater plant productivity. If indeed your assertion about plant damage is true, then what need we worry about? So which is wrong? Which should I believe?

"Drying of arctic ponds with subsequent damage to ecosystem."
I find myself unable to link this with the shrinking arctic. Can you explain?

"Rainforests releasing CO2 as regions become drier."
From abstract, "Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume."
How is this a threat?

"Severe consequences for at least 60 million people dependent on ice melt for water supply."
I thought there was going to be more liquid water due to melting?

"Contribution to rising sea levels"
How is rising sea levels a threat? At most, the relocation of low-lying populations to inner ground is all that is required, and humans are known to be highly adaptable.

"What do you mean?" I mean that no data is recorded of the radiation coming to Earth.

In conclusion, I would like to state that Pro"s "threats" list is actually a list of claims without substance because they only link to sources. (Does anyone see something familiar)

"I demur. As no forcing has been shown that fits the fingerprint of anthropogenic global warming
The resolution is affirmed"
As no threat is large enough or present to cause worry, the resolution is negated.

Grammar: Tie

Conduct: Con
See Pro"s list of threats

Argument: Con
Pro has not given enough support for his "Threats"

Sources: Pro
More sources than con.
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

This is data from only a small portion of a continent on a big Earth. It is not possible to conclude from this that wildfires is happening everywhere.

This is what the source and argument was saying. That it's a threat in the western side of the states. I think it's well known that heat causes fire.

This data is correlated to higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, but is not certain that is the cause.

The source gave good evidence that it is a cause.

Conclusions: The authors confirmed in a large sample of cities that both cold and hot temperatures increase mortality risk. These findings suggest that increases in heat-related mortality due to global warming are unlikely to be compensated for by decreases in cold-related mortality and that population acclimatization to heat is still incomplete. (From your source)

Con basically repeats me. As there is more heat deaths than cold.

My own conclusion from this is that the density of American cities and people, and the lack of air-conditioning, leading to "stuffyness," is the cause of "heat deaths." Not heatwaves per say.

This is still agreeing with my argument. Many American people and cities have A.C., regardless people still have to go outside. As if everyone had air-conditioning to prevent "stuffyness" everyone cannot just stay inside their houses.

Mosquite? Is that such a threat? I deal with the possibility of getting those viruses every day. (I live near the equator, and seriously, there is no need to panic.)

I don't think I need to explain the threat of death. Researchers from Oxford University and University of Florida found that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that "predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.[1][2]

The cited source is a clear support for my previous assertion of greater plant productivity. If indeed your assertion about plant damage is true, then what need we worry about? So which is wrong? Which should I believe?

As I said before

"These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit"

I didn't dispute that CO2 doesn't cause plants to grow. Over time however these will be truncated.

I find myself unable to link this with the shrinking arctic. Can you explain?

I'm unsure what you mean. Do you mean you cannot see a link between damage to ecosystem and a drying pond? As the source says

"These surface waters are often hotspots of biodiversity and production for microorganisms, plants, and animals in this otherwise extreme terrestrial environment." as a shrinking pond would be damaging to these.

From abstract, "Coupled climate-carbon cycle models suggest that Amazon forests are vulnerable to both long- and short-term droughts, but satellite observations showed a large-scale photosynthetic green-up in intact evergreen forests of the Amazon in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. These findings suggest that Amazon forests, although threatened by human-caused deforestation and fire and possibly by more severe long-term droughts, may be more resilient to climate changes than ecosystem models assume."
How is this a threat?

It may not be an extremely long term effect on the rainforest, however as the point was that when it becomes dryer more CO2 is released.

I thought there was going to be more liquid water due to melting?

Yes there will be more water, but this doesn't mean potable water. We can purify and boil some water, yet this doesn't get out certain types of harmful chemicals.

How is rising sea levels a threat? At most, the relocation of low-lying populations to inner ground is all that is required, and humans are known to be highly adaptable.

Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted. Estimates of sea-level rise are feared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposed benefits to sea-level rise


I mean that no data is recorded of the radiation coming to Earth.

What I was trying to show was that heat is not escaping from Earth. It's irrelevant to how much is coming in. Besides this we do have data of what radiation is coming to Earth [3]

As no threat is large enough or present to cause worry, the resolution is negated.

I have shown that these are still threats. As only half were addressed by con. I state again no model fits the human fingerprint of global warming and I have shown it is a threat.

The resolution is affirmed

Vote Pro


[1]Peter W. Gething, David L. Smith, Anand P. Patil, Andrew J. Tatem, Robert W. Snow & Simon I. Hay (20 May 2010). "Climate change and the global malaria recession". Nature 465 (7296): 342–345. Bibcode 2010Natur.465..342G. doi:10.1038/nature09098. PMC 2885436. PMID 20485434.
[2] "Don’t sweat it: Development and public-health initiatives will matter much more to malaria than the climate will". The Economist. 2010-05-19. Retrieved 2010-05-25.
[3] http://lasp.colorado.edu...
Muted

Con

To have an equal number of rounds, I'm not posting anything here.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
The reason that this debate has no votes is that it's long and boring. No offense, of course.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
LOL. funniest post I ever seen. With your permission, I will reply in 12-18 hours!
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Sorry, I don't know why the text format went crazy.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Strange. They showed up in the review page.

Here they are
http://debate.org...

http://debate.org...
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Boss, pics not loading.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Magic8000MutedTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro beat the hell out of Con with the number of sources. Other than that, it was hard to make heads and tails of Pro's argument, because most of it was badly garbled, and littered with infamous "&quo"s. For this reason, I award spelling and grammar, and conduct to the Con, to even things out, because, to be honest, I feel because Pro's arguments were comprised by such a large quantity of &quos, it's hard to tell who should win arguments. Oh yeah, furthermore, Conduct goes to Con because Pro violated my "Vote for me" conduct peeve.