The Instigator
JrRepublican
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Chub123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anthropogenic, catastrophic, carbon dioxide based global warming is a hoax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 4/5/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,451 times Debate No: 15807
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

JrRepublican

Pro

My opponent will have to prove that global warming is existent, anthropogenic, carbon-caused, and catastrophic. I will attempt to debunk the claims of alarmists. My first argument states that the earth is not warming significantly. From J. Hansen's first testimony in 1988 to 2007, the earth has cooled by approximately .5 degrees. This is from a the UAH MSU monthly global temperatures. The University of Illinois Polar Research Group found that the Antarctic sea ice reached record levels in 2007--at 16.26 million square kilometers, up 1.4 % This is obviously not a sign of warming. There is also no consensus that global warming is real. Many highly educated and reputable scientists and politicians disagree with the alarmist viewpoint. Richard Lindzen and MIT, Petr Chylek at Los Alamos, Vaclav Klaus,t he president of the Czech Republic, and Dr. Nir Shariv at Hebrew University are just a few of the top minds in meteorology, astrophysics, and other related scientific disciplines that disagree with warmmongerism. Unfortunately, these voices are squelched by the liberal media. That little bit of information is just the beginning.
Chub123

Con

Before we begin, we must first define what we mean by 'global warming'. According to several sources, including www.nwrc.usgs.gov, global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere - I'm sure we can all stand common ground to that. http://www.nasa.gov... - This picture shows that the average temperature of the Earth's surface has rapidly increased since the 1880s (coincidentally when the industrial revolution occurred) thus global warming has taken place; this is undeniable and has been confirmed by several governmental & non-governmental bodies. Anthropogenic industrialization and its pollution have had direct impacts on our atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations (exempli gratia water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide or in other words greenhouse gases ) have increased, all of which contribute to the containment of heat near the Earth's surface.
Debate Round No. 1
JrRepublican

Pro

Actually, we can't stand on common ground. The source I quoted proves that the earth is cooling and has cooled during the last twenty-odd years. The chart by NASA is factually inaccurate since it omits the warm period during the 1930s. It is also biased because of the anomalies in the placement of the USHCN temperature stations beginning in 1990. An excellent website to show this and other oddities is http://www.wattsupwiththat.com.... This website by Anthony Watts shows pictures of incorrectly placed stations as well as discussing the temperature affects of whitewash vs. the new latex paint. the ultimate outcome is that there is an 85% chance of a 1-5 degree Celsius error--warmer. Mr. Watts is a highly respected meteorologist. Another question--why is the 1880's the starting period? Why don't they include the Medieval Warm Period which was several degrees warmer than the supposed recent warming. Central England temperature records show that the average warming is .26 degrees per century. This is regardless of the actual carbon increase--the temps increase at the same rate even after CO2 went up. Also, the total carbon concentrations are 390 parts per million, with only 15 ppm of human emissions. This is a climatically insignificant sum of 3-4%. It is completely pointless to reduce our 15 parts (we can't stop breathing, so we'd only reduce, say 5-6 parts at best.) After all, if carbon doubled, it would only take a 1% increase in cloud cover to counteract this. Imagine a football stadium filled with 1 million fans, then remove even the liberal sum of 8 people. Big deal! Carbon is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and reducing that paltry sum wouldn't make a difference, even IF it is warming
Chub123

Con

Chub123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JrRepublican

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited the round, I will continue to post my arguments.
Peter Taylor, an environmentalist himself , said in his book CHILL, "There have always been uncertainties as to what drives global temperature and the climate feedbacks. It is very obvious that they are cyclic in nature, yet these cycles are all but ignored in the interests of a simple message.

Moving on to the impact of CO2 on the planet. In the Arctic, temperature variations are closely related to solar cycles, while being completely varied form carbon concentrations (from researcher Dr. Willie Soon). A UK environmentalist David Bellamy said, 'The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent and catastrophic global warming." Peter Taylor again, "The close correlation of global temperatures to the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) would suggest that cloud cover and aerosol patterns related to the Pacific Ocean are the main drivers of global temperature." Human emissions, as already shown, are under four percent of total output. Since carbon is a trace gas (only 0.04% of the atmosphere) this is inconsequential. In later rounds I will show why this hoax is perpetrated on America. Con, please post your argument
Chub123

Con

Chub123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JrRepublican

Pro

Con, Please post your argument!!!
Chub123

Con

Chub123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 3 years ago
Bob_Gneu
The use of "Proves" when referring to a source is incorrect.

The most you can say is that it is evidence of something, but your source has not been cited well and so i cannot look into it deep enough to refute it.

The WUWT Website is controversial at best, and as such quite far from reputable. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org... << look at the citations here and what they are saying, not necessarily the contents of the wiki page.
Posted by JrRepublican 3 years ago
JrRepublican
That, and hopefully casting disreputable sources into doubt.
Posted by Bob_Gneu 3 years ago
Bob_Gneu
This debate has been had a number of times, are you bringing more credible sources to light than these?
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
I would love to accept this but unfortunately I'm swamped at the moment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.