The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheDebater_101
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/4/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 80427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

tejretics

Pro

Preface

This is a truly relevant issue, and a topic of major debate between liberals and conservatives. There is heated disagreement on the issue between the Democratic Party and Republican Party, and climate skeptics and modelers debate this over multiple studies based on empirical research. Due to this, I have decided to discuss this issue that is extemely relevant today. I hope for a great discourse.

TheDebater_101 has asked to accept this debate. He is the only user with permission to accept this debate. Voters require a minimum Elo of 3000 to judge the debate.

Full Topic


On balance, mankind is probably the main cause of global warming.

Terms

All terms and definitions influenced by the Oxford Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia.

On Balance - 'when all factors are taken into consideration'
Mankind - 'the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind'
Probably - 'is likely to take place or be true'
Main - 'chief in size, extent or importance'
Cause - 'the producer of an effect' or 'a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition'
Global Warming - 'the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation,' and 'the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects'

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. All arguments must be within this debate, but sources can be in an external link directed to within this debate
3. No new arguments in the final round (except defending one's original arguments)
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other "kritiks")
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate
9. The burden of proof is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or any of the R1 set-up is a conduct violation, and any violating arguments (e.g. "kritiks," rebuttals in R4) should be discredited by judges

Structure

R1. Acceptance Only
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case, both Crystallize

Thanks...

...to TheDebater_101; I look forward to an engaging discourse!
TheDebater_101

Con

I accept the debate and look forward to an engaging discourse
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

I thank 101 for accepting!

ARGUMENTS

C1. Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks

Carbon dioxide has a significant influence on global land-sea mean temperature. All scientists agree that CO2 has some direct effect, increasing temperature by 1.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. David Evans argues, "Most serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with government climate scientists about the effect of CO2. The argument is about the feedbacks." [1]

Climate sensitivity is the key point in all of climate science. It refers to, in this context, the rise in equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A 2005 study by Nir Joseph Shaviv confirms that the climate sensitivity, without any amplification, is 1.1 degrees Celsius. [2] The debate is about the feedbacks.

What is a feedback? A feedback is a climate process that amplifies or dampens the effect of a climate forcing. A climate forcing is any factor that influences temperature increase, in this case referring to CO2. So, a feedback is anything that amplifies or dampens the effect of CO2 on climate. Feedbacks that amplify it are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are negative ones. [3] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate, and therefore, increase the overall effect of CO2 on temperature.



Various studies report positive feedbacks as more likely. Soden and Held report a 2 degree celsius climate sensitivity due to positive feedbacks. The study reports very few negative feedbacks. "Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response." [4] A 2003 study by Colman reports a feedback of nearly 3 degrees celsius, and the paper is cited by Soden and Held. In the study, a "comparison is performed for water vapour, cloud, albedo and lapse rate feedbacks taken from published results of 'offline' feedback calculations for general circulation models (GCMs) with mixed layer oceans performing 2 x CO2 and solar perturbation experiments." [5]

There is much evidence outside climate models as well. Wigley, et al. report a possible sensitivity of greater than 4.5 degrees celsius due to volcanic forcings, and supports an average sensitivity of 3.5 degrees. The study says, "After the maximum cooling for low-latitude eruptions, the temperature relaxes back toward the initial state with an e-folding time of 29–43 months for sensitivities of 1–4 degrees C equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling." [6] A 2005 study by Forster and Gregory also uses volcanic forcings and feedbacks, and finds a climate sensitivity range of 1 - 4.1 degrees Celsius. [7]

Even in a hypothetical scenario where negative feedbacks cancel out positive feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C, research by Ziskin and Shaviv (2011) has predicted that "the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources." [8] They find that of the ~0.7 degree C temperature rise in the 20th century (some estimates slightly higher), about 0.4 degrees of that are due to anthropogenic forgings, or about 57% of the warming.

Nonetheless, climate sensitivity is likely much higher than that. Research by Patrick Michaels, a CATO scholar, found that the amplifier was 1.6 degrees C. [9] This means that human activity causing global warming is much greater than 57%, even under these low estimates. I still maintain that sensitivity is somewhere around 2 - 3 degrees C. A study by leading climatologist JD Annan -- using the Bayesian statistical approach -- found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius. [10] The following graph displays the literature on carbon dioxide sensitivity.



The following picture portrays the evidence regarding climate sensitivity.



As such, I conclude that the effect of the rise in CO2 on climate is huge.

C2. Paleoclimate

The paleoclimatological record is clear that CO2 has become the chief climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era (which began after the Cretaceous mass-extinction event 65.5 million years ago). Overall, solar activity has increased by 40% in this period. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato argue, "The sun’s brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2 . This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era...CO2 [has been] the dominant forcing in the Cenozoic." [11] The below graph depicts the correlations between CO2 and temperatures over the past 200,000 years.



The temperature changes correspond to the changes in CO2 levels. Take the example of the Vostok ice cores. A study by French and Russian institutes says, "There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." [12]

There is proof that it is warmer now than since the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400. Thus, paleoclimatology confirms that CO2 influences climate at huge levels.

C3. Human Activity

I have now established that CO2 is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 65%. Now, I must establish that humans are responsible for much of CO2 generation. First, a simple correlation -- CO2 levels rose with the beginning of industrial activity. [13]



If the ratio between C-14 and C-12 decline, the observation would virtually confirm that human activity is responsible for increase in CO2 concentration. This is because the CO2 emissions humans make come from fossil fuels. This has been observed. [14, 15]

UNDERVIEW

I have shown the following:

a. Climate sensitivity is likely high, and positive feedbacks dominate climate, suggesting that carbon dioxide can significantly influence global land-sea mean and atmopsheric temperatures.

b. The paleoclimatological record demonstrates that carbon dioxide has been the most major climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era, which began 65.5 million years ago.

c. Human activity is the main driving force behind rise in CO2 concentrations, and there is (1) a documented rise in CO2 concentrations, and (2) a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature records.

SOURCES

1 - https://mises.org...
2 - http://bit.ly...
3 - http://bit.ly...
4 - http://1.usa.gov...
5 - http://bit.ly...
6 - http://bit.ly...
7 - http://bit.ly...
8 - http://bit.ly...
9 - http://bit.ly...
10 - http://bit.ly...
11 - http://bit.ly...
12 - http://cdiac.ornl.gov...
13 - http://bit.ly...
14 - http://bit.ly...
15 - http://bit.ly...

Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!
TheDebater_101

Con

-First off, I would like to thank my opponent for a well written, organized first argument

Arguments

Contention 1: The Effects of The Sun on Climate Changes://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="95px;" height="113px;" />s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="213px;" height="113px;" />
P1: The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change
The Main Driver of Climate Change is the Sun. The energy output of the Sun's irradiance, which has been nearly constant, with 0.1% variations. So the irradiance can't be the cause. However the sun also affects us with magnetic fields, UV Light and Solar Winds. These components vary much more and so affect the climate much more [1]. Also the Temperature Anomaly matches closer with the sunspot cycle length then with the concentration of CO2 as you can see in the graph below, which would not happen if the sun wasn't the main driver of climate change. As you can see above the more active the sun is, the more the climate warms [2]. The Anthropogenic Theory can't provide an explanation for this pattern and calls it a coincidence, which isn’t true, as it correlates so much.

s://lh4.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="177px;" height="171px;" />


s://lh5.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="206px;" height="113px;" />

P2: Ongoing Pause
Global Warming is now experiencing a pause. The Cosmic Ray Theory can explain this, as this is because the 24th solar cycle is the weakest solar cycle. This results in more cosmic rays, as cosmic rays are inversely proportional to the irradiance of the Sun and so the more sunspots, the less cosmic rays, which means more heat, as less clouds are formed [3]. This Pause can't be explained by the anthropogenic theory as the anthropogenic theory states that because the co2 level increases exponentially, the heat should also [4]. However we find that in fact the global warming is experiencing a slight pause, which can only be explained by the cosmic ray theory, as the anthropogenic theory can’t explain it.


P3: Extraterrestrial Climate Change
Recently Scientists discovered that global warming is happening in the whole universe. Scientists think this mainly is, because we're passing right through the Manasaic belt composed of high energy photons, which can transfer heat only if the cosmic ray theory is correct [5]. This is evidenced by the fact that the polar ice caps on Mars have been shrinking for the last 3 years. [6] It isn't only Mars also; It's every planet with a atmosphere and also some of the moons with an atmosphere, which have been experiencing global warming [7]. If global warming is anthropogenic, it wouldn't be able to be happen anywhere except on Earth, because humans aren't anywhere but on Earth


Contention 2: The 1'500 Year Solar Cycle
P1: Solar Cycle is real
The 1'500 Solar Cycle exists and is defined by a period of cooling and then warming. This is shown by that approx. every 1'500 years the Bond Event happens (an anomaly), which is a sudden climate fluctuation characterized by cold and/or arid occurring in a specific place. The solar cycle is characterized by the cooling for half of the cycle and warming for the second half of the cycle. The Bond Event happens because of solar fluctuations in the solar cycle. This can only happen if the cosmic ray theory is real, as under the anthropogenic theory none of the climate fluctuations could happen which includes the Little Ice Age, but the Little Ice Age is extremely well documented and so solar fluctuations have to be the main cause of climate change [8].

Overview:
In overview I affirmed that although climate change is partly made by humans. The Cosmic Ray Theory explains that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not humans. Also note that co2 is a natural element and is natturaly occuring in the climate. The Cern Experiment found a " ... LINK BETWEEN COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE CHANGE". An excerpt is located below. Remember, I am only saying it's the main cause, I am not saying it's the only cause of climate change

Excerpt:

The experiment at CERN is fabricating the upper atmosphere in the lab by trapping ultra-pure air and things like water vapor, ozone, ammonia, and sulphur dioxide in a chamber. They are then bombarding that air with protons from the same generator that supplies the Large Hadron Collider. Preliminary results show that these faux cosmic rays indeed have an effect on the atmosphere: When high energy protons stream in, production of nanometer-sized particles in the atmosphere increases by more than ten times.

Citations:

[1]: https://www.youtube.com...... (A speech presented by Nir J. Shaviv)
[2]: http://www.skepticalscience.com......
[3]: http://www.climatedepot.com......
[4]: http://wattsupwiththat.com......
[5]: https://prof77.wordpress.com......
[6]: http://news.nationalgeographic.com......
[7]: http://news.mit.edu......, https://prof77.wordpress.com......
[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org...;

Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

Thanks, 101! I will now rebut Con's case.

OVERVIEW: I can't see any of the pictures Con presents. It seems Con presents many pictures, but they have all failed, instead bringing Google Docs (User Content) links. Thus, I will rebut Con's case ignoring all pictures presented within Con's arguments, and they henceforth account for nothing. Con cannot correct the pictures next round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them.

CON's CASE

C1. The Effects of the Sun

P1. The Sun Drives Climate Change

I agree that the sun is the main driver of climate change. This does not hinder anthropogenic global warming in any way, because, while CO2 may not directly correlate with temperature, the radiative forcing of carbon dioxide and the Sun allows for a correlation. Carbon dioxide is the most major forcing in the Cenozoic, since it traps the Sun's heat within the Earth, allowing for the most recent spurt of global warming. [1] The below graph displays the correlation. [2]



The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years.



A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6]




Furthermore, Con's assertion that the temperature anomaly correlates more closely with sunspot cycle length is false. The only study that found such data was by a 1991 Norwegian study, which has flawed data due to arithmetic errors. A new paper has come out and has corrected the errors, which demonstrate that sun-spot cycle length does not correlate well with temperature rise, while carbon dioxide does. [7] The errors are depicted below. [8]



The following graph shows the updated correlation. [7]



Thus, there is a greater correlation between CO2 and temperature than between the sun-spot cycle and temperature.

P2. Ongoing Pause

a.
Con doesn't prove that "global warming is now experiencing a pause." That is a bare assertion. Most evidence suggests that no such "pause" is being experienced by global warming. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [9, 10] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or "La Nena" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [11] The heat content of Earth is actually increasing. "This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land andatmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year." [12] The below graph represents this. [13]



b. Con doesn't establish how this actually links to the resolution. There being a pause in global warming doesn't connect in any way to global warming being man-made, except as a "kritik" of the topic, challenging the assumption that global warming even exists, which is in direct violation of Rule 6.

P3. Extraterrestrial Climate Change

a. This contention isn't topical. Humans causing global warming on Earth doesn't imply other effects cannot cause global warming in other planets. This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

b. Con's examples are flawed. The majority of planets experiencing global warming are due to unique factors. "The planets and moons that are claimed to be warming total roughly eight out of dozens of large bodies in the solar system. Some, like Uranus, may be cooling. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846." [14] Con's most major line of defense is Mars, but "the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all." [14]

C2. The Solar Cycle

The 1500-year-old solar cycle argument is generalized to include the whole Earth. No evidence is given in favor of this. Holistic studies indicate that the 1500-year cycle does not apply to the whole Earth. Due to the generalization not being justified, and other studies have demonstrated that the cycle does not appply to much of the Earth, the argument can be discarded. [15]

C3. Cosmic Rays

For cosmic rays to explain climate, 1) the solar magnetic field must have a long-term negative trend, 2) the cosmic ray flux must have a long-term negative trend, 3) cosmic rays must create low level clouds, 4) low level clouds must have a long term negative trend. [16]

Firstly, the magnetic field does not have a long term negative trend. It has been fairly inactive over 30 years, and the correlation between temperature and cosmic rays is fairly weak. [17] Secondly, "Cosmic ray flux on Earth has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period." [16] Thirdly, for cosmic rays to create low level clouds, the aerosol formation induced by the CR should be able to form cloud-condensation nuclei; this has been disputed. [16] Finally, Norris et al. 2007 argue, "Global mean time series of surface- and satellite-observed low-level and total cloud cover exhibit very large discrepancies, however, implying that artifacts exist in one or both data sets....The surface-observed low-level cloud cover time series averaged over the global ocean appears suspicious because it reports a very large 5%-sky-cover increase between 1952 and 1997. Unless low-level cloud albedo substantially decreased during this time period, the reduced solar absorption caused by the reported enhancement of cloud cover would have resulted in cooling of the climate system that is inconsistent with the observed temperature record." [18] This means low-level clouds do not have a long term negative trend.

Thus, cosmic rays cannot influence climate change significantly.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...
10 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://tinyurl.com...
14 - http://tinyurl.com...
15 - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
16 - http://tinyurl.com...
17 - http://tinyurl.com...
18 - http://tinyurl.com...

Thus, I affirm. Over to Con...
TheDebater_101

Con

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheDebater_101

Con

TheDebater_101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
The forcing/feedback visual was very nice. I remember reading about feedback and climate when I was about 12 and couldn't make sense of it.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Arguing in the comments isn't against site rules? It's rude but not necessarily prohibited...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
The first one links to youtube.com, not any particular video; the second to SkepticalScience.com, not any particular article; etc.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@TheDebator101

Click all your links and see if it comes to any of the sites you intended.
Posted by TheDebater_101 1 year ago
TheDebater_101
@Tejretics
What do you mean by my links being broken
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@tbone8

I repeat - please do not argue in the comments until the debate is over.
Posted by tbone8 1 year ago
tbone8
I would like to bring up another extremely important note about the so called scientific consensus surrounding this matter. It is widely disseminated by the media that 98% or what ever number they are using now support Anthropogenic Global Warming. The number more close to reality is a 60-40 split but that really doesnt matter. Just because there is a majority consensus in science doesn't make it so. There are many examples of so called consensus later proven wrong. The world was flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc. More recently, the expansion of the universe was thought to be slowing down. It has been discovered that it is indeed accelerating. The scientific community questioned the new theory because they had to reconsider a new understanding of how the universe works. Science theory, may I remind everyone that global warming is just a theory, is routinely proven wrong. The sinister part about the global warming crowd as opposed to most other science is the money. Proving the universe is accelerating folks did not have to fight a multi billion dollar lobby saying it was decelerating. As I have said, many powerful political people stand to make a lot of money off this sham. Al Gores mansion uses 20 times the national average of energy consumption not including his multiple SUV's and private jet flights. Can you say hypocrite??? This champion of the global warming movement also sold his tv network to big oil. Did you know he wont allow his speeches to be recorded and will not debate the climate issue? What does he have to hide if what he says is 100% fact? If it smells like a rotten egg, it usually is indeed, a rotten egg...
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Oh, dear, I mixed up the overview. It wasn't supposed to be the picture thing. I mistakenly C/P'd the wrong bit; it was supposed to be:

"All sources presented by Con are broken links. Thus, I will rebut Con's case ignoring all sources presented within Con's arguments, and they henceforth account for nothing. Con cannot correct the sources next round, as I will have no opportunity to refute them."
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@tbone8

Do not argue against my args mid-debate, since that would indicate bias towards a particular side and help them, which is against site rules.
Posted by tbone8 1 year ago
tbone8
@tejretics
"Con doesn't prove that "global warming is now experiencing a pause." That is a bare assertion. Most evidence suggests that no such "pause" is being experienced by global warming. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. "

The Sea Surface Temperature Data that you cite is overcooked and adjusted temperature data. UAH satellite data clearly shows no warming for the past 22 years. But I digress... One could spend the rest of their lives arguing the small details when in reality it is much more simple. Fact, the earth has warmed and cooled for BILLIONS of years. Fact, we are in an interglacial period between ice ages where one would expect the friggen temps to rise. Thats how the Great Lakes were formed, glaciers melted, did anyone know this??? No man made emissions back then, how could this happen? All the model prediction of catastrophic man made global warming have not proven to be true what so ever. Which brings up a good point, this is all model (ie hypothetical) driven lunacy. Where is the massive increase in hurricanes like Katrina? Its all speculated nonsense. Has anyone ever seen a 5 day forecast hit one the nose for temperature and precipitation? And they expect us to buy hook line and sinker that there glorious models can predict massive man made global warming??? The fact that this poppycock has any traction among thinking individuals continues to perplex me to this day. Its a hoax, based on flawed data in order to make certain people very wealthy. Its that simple my friends...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
tejreticsTheDebater_101
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues through theory, statistics and historical evidence that carbon dioxide can cause global warming, and then showed the huge increase in CO2 concentrations caused by human activity. His strong case was not rebutted by Con at all. Con shows a correlation between solar activity and climatic change through statistical evidence and theory, but Con showed that the stats were compatible with anthropogenic global warming and that the theory was founded on shaky grounds. Con made no attempt to defend his case, so my vote goes to Pro.