The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Anthropogenic climate change.

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...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 98082
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.


Structure
R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense

Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.

Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.

Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.

Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.

Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.

Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.
RonPaulConservative

Con

Man made Global Warming? Yes and Man-Bear-Pig is real, Al Gore told me so.
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

R2 Arguments


Note, my opponent has deviated from the structure in round one and should be penalized. Suggestion, one point for conduct.


A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

" But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [0]

Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so.

"in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [1]

"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [2]

"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [3]

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [4]

My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.

Sources:
0. http://science.sciencemag.org...
1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
2. http://dx.doi.org...
3. http://www.nature.com...
4. http://iopscience.iop.org...
RonPaulConservative

Con

Actually that was just acceptance, and this was my way of accepting the debate.
Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now? Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate.
Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. {1} None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. {2}
In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. {3} This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. {4}

Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2, {5} the global temparture can only increase by 0.0013% as a result of CO2 emmissions. Mathmatically speaking, it makes no sense that such a small influence on the atmosphere can cause gobal warming. And look at this graph:

The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually.

{1}. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
{2}.
http://www.longrangeweather.com...
{3}.
http://www.newsmax.com...
{4}.
https://www.nasa.gov...
{5}. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round 3 Rebuttals


"Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now?" RonPaulConservative

Do you have any proof that the general scientific consensus was that the Earth used to be flat? This is a bare assertion fallacy without any outside sources, only true because you say it is true. A counter proposal is that the masses were mesmerized by religious dogma that made them believe the Earth was flat.

""that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"

"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"

"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)" " [0]

As you can see the Old Testament clearly promotes the idea of a flat Earth. The Old Testament is religious doctrine as opposed to scientific.


Meanwhile, early philosophers/scientist proposed and announced the Earth was spherical in shape.

"It has actually been known that the Earth was round since the time of the ancient Greeks. I believe that it was Pythagoras who first proposed that the Earth was round sometime around 500 B.C. As I recall, he based his idea on the fact that he showed the Moon must be round by observing the shape of the terminator (the line between the part of the Moon in light and the part of the Moon in the dark) as it moved through its orbital cycle. Pythagoras reasoned that if the Moon was round, then the Earth must be round as well. After that, sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.

Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator) and during the next hundred years or so, Aristarchus and Eratosthenes actually measured the size of the Earth!" [1]

Therefore, scientists have never claimed the Earth was flat, and instead religious doctrines and leaders have promoted the idea of a flat Earth.


"Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " RonPaulConservative

Please use spell check. The 70's cooling trend was due to sulfur aerosol forcing. By the very nature of science a hypothesis can be dis proven and adjusted accordingly, this flexibility is the greatest strength of science as opposed to unyielding faith based doctrine.

"The answer is now apparent with recent studies in aerosol levels and global dimming. Atmospheric aerosols caused a global dimming (eg - less radiation reaching the earth) from 1950 to 1985. In the mid-80's, the trend reversed and radiation levels at the Earth's surface began to brighten. From 1950 to the mid-80's, the cooling effect from aerosols was masking the warming effect from CO2. When aerosol cooling ended, the current global warming trend began." [2]

"From the mid-1990s the sub-thermocline southern Indian Ocean experienced a rapid temperature trend reversal. Here we show, using climate models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, that the late twentieth century sub-thermocline cooling of the southern Indian Ocean was primarily driven by increasing anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. " [3]

As you can see man-made aerosols caused the cooling trend.


"Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. " RonPaulConservative

Many predictions were wrong, but this is how science works, a scientist makes a prediction, then sees if it is correct or incorrect and adjusts accordingly. Each prediction becoming more and more accurate.

"None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. " RonPaulConservative


While it is true that there has been cooling and warming periods in the past, this is a red herring. The rapid rate of Co2 accumulation and temperature change has been correlated with catastrophic events in the past. [9] There is no evidence that the warming trend will decrease. You have shown no evidence that a natural event is causing the current warming trend.

"In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. " RonPaulConservative

This seems blatantly false, global temperatures are rising and have been rising. [4]

"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." [4]

Also, you choose Newsmax as your source which is about as non-credible as source as you can get. [5]

"NewsMax.com (NewsMax Media, Inc.) "serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site." [5]

"RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy." [6]

Newsmax.com has almost an extreme right bias.

"This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. " RonPaulConservative

The Antarctic ice sheets are shrinking.

"The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass." [7]


"Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2" RonPaulConservative


A small amount of Co2 can cause large increases in temperature due to the amplification effect, also known as postive feedback cycle.

"In this week's Nature, David Frank and colleagues extend this empirical approach by comparing nine global-scale temperature reconstructions with CO2 data from three Antarctic ice cores over the period ad 1050-1800. The authors derive a likely range for the feedback strength of 1.7-21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per degree Celsius, with a median value of 7.7." [8]

"The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. " RonPaulConservative

That may not seem a lot to you but .6 degrees Celsius is quite a lot in 120 years. The problem is not the temperature increase itself, but the rapid rate of change that will shock the Earth's ecosystems. Finally, Co2 levels continue to rise dramatically. [9]


There should be no doubt that I destroyed my opponent's round two argument. Showing the statements to be blatantly false, red herrings, and/or from bias sources.

Sources
0. http://www.answering-christianity.com...
1. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
2. https://skepticalscience.com...
3. http://www.nature.com...
4. http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com...
5. http://www.sourcewatch.org...
6. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
7. http://climate.nasa.gov...
8. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
9. https://www.skepticalscience.com...
RonPaulConservative

Con

There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round.

THE MATH
If 3.225% of CO2 emmissions are man-made, and 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, then man made global warming cxan only alter the global temparture by 0.000013%. In addition to this, CO2 is actually a very weak greenhouse gass.
In fact, doubling the CO2 composition of the atmosphere would only increase the temparture by 0.6 degrees. {1}

FEEDBACKS
The theory was that an increase in the CO2 composition of the atmosphere increased, and if this increased the global temparture, then the ammoun of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase, which would reduce the global temparture as water vapor, or clouds, reflect sunlight back into outerspace. This is actually demonstrable, if it is raining outside, is the air colder or warmer? Colder, of course, whilst, if this theory of possitive feedbacks were true, the temparture should increase when it is raining outside. Water vapor reflects sunlight, and every degree of heat on this plaet comes from the sun, directly or indirectly.

In addition to this, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes as its composition of a given atmosphere increases. {2}

THE TREND
As I said before, we are in the middle of a natural trend where the global temparture has been increasing, my opponent claims that climate change is still man made because 'there is no evience this trend will decrease,' but that's just nonsense, the global temparture has been rising since before man made CO2 emmissions. The temparture has been rising since 1600.

GLOBAL COOLING
More ice= colder tempartures, if warmer tempartures created more ice, then people would put ice cubes in their oven to freeze them, not their freezer. This is just common sense- if Antartic Sea ice grows,m this means that the temparture has declined, claiming that tempartures have declined because of global warming is just completely absurd.
My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. Fact is, the global temparture is cooling because the sun has cycles of higher activity and warmer activity, creating natural global warming , which is now coming to an end as solar activity is declining. {3}

{1}.http://notrickszone.com...
{2}. https://wattsupwiththat.com...
{3}. http://isthereglobalcooling.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round 4 defense.

My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again.

"Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape

My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to.

Proof:
"There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative

"My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative

I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal.

"Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape

Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.
RonPaulConservative

Con

My opponent has made no attempt to respond to my points and has thus forfeited this round to me, I win the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for voting again.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
RFD continued(2)

Sources:
4) Both pro and cone used nasa.gov as a source which is also generally more reliable than a news media outlet, as it's a scientific program from the government, and doesn't have profit as a motive for slanting facts, like news media outlets do. However, this is just about the only completely reliable source con used, while pro used a number of more reliable sources.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
RFD continued:

Pro made more convincing arguments as they relied on science and logic:
1) They pointed out that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is in the affirmative, and climate scientists are generally trusted authorities on the matter. Con tried to refute this by claiming the scientific consensus used to be that the earth was flat, but never provided evidence for this. Pro countered this argument by showing that philosophers of ancient Greece believed the earth was globular, and con made no direct rebuttal to this after the fact.
2) Although one of pro's arguments is weak, where they claimed anthropogenic climate change killed thousands of lives, and con points out how temperature has only risen less than a degree celsius in the past century, this is offset by pro's other convincing arguments, which I will continue to outline.
3) While con pointed out that science was wrong when Al Gore predicted the ice caps melting, pro offered a sufficient rebuttal that scientists are sometimes wrong with predictions, and it doesn't necessarily mean the scientific theories are wrong themselves, but that specific prediction is.

Pro used the more reliable sources:
1) Con relied on a daily mail as a source, which is known to be a British right-wing tabloid( https://en.wikipedia.org... ) and thus cannot be trusted as tabloids are generally more sensationalist, and since it has a right-wing bias, it has interest in debunking climate change from the beginning rather than looking at scientific fact.
2) Pro relied largely on scientific journals and science websites such as sciencemag.org and the iopscience source. Since they are scientific in nature, they are less likely to have biases and only presenting scientific facts.
3) Con also relied on news max as a source which is a conservative-leaning news media organization, which is also less likely to be interested in facts, and more likely interested in what sells.

(continued)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Capitalistslave// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct because Con went against the agreed upon round structure from the beginning twice: once in round 1 which should have just been acceptance, and twice in round 3 which should have been rebuttals to pro's arguments, but were not rebuttals and actually new arguments. Spelling and grammar goes to pro because there were many spelling and grammar mistakes made by con, one was difficult to understand when they said "Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " which made no grammatical sense. Pro's arguments were all easy to understand grammatically. Pro made more convincing arguments as they relied on science and logic, and con made several unsubstantiated claims such as that the scientific community used to think the earth was flat. Pro used the most reliable sources as they relied on scientific journals and science websites, con used media sites with a bias,.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both debaters. The voter does so for neither. Merely stating that one side "relied on science and logic" is not an assessment of any individual arguments, nor is stating that one side"s claims are generally unsupported. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to explain why the given media sites are biased, and why that bias invalidates or makes them less than the sites used by Pro.
************************************************************************
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for voting Capitalistslave .
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
You didn't beat my arguments. you pretended as if you did
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"My opponent has made no attempt to respond to my points and has thus forfeited this round to me, I win the debate!" RonPaulConservative

No, you broke the structure and therefore I couldn't respond to your round without breaking the structure myself and becoming a hypocrite. I did not forfeit the round.

You may have won the debate or you may not have, the voters will decide. You only reiterated old arguments which I have beaten not only in this debate but many previous debates as well.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Here you used the bias website of wattuswiththat.com

"In addition to this, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes as its composition of a given atmosphere increases. {2}" RonPaulConservative

"Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[31] Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[32]"

The website has its own watch site.

"This web site will be a response to wattsupwiththat.com, an anti-science web site operated by amateur climatology critic Anthony Watts and his associates. We consider his web site a prominent and monotonous source of misinformation and misrepresentation of the science and physical evidence that relates to the human contribution toward Climate Change, also called Anthropogenic Global Warming or "AGW"."

"Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]"

https://wattsupwiththat.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://wottsupwiththat.com...
http://www.sourcewatch.org...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias." RonPaulConservative

I cannot dismiss newsmax entirely, but I can weaken the claim by exposing the bias of the source. Where have I used primarily liberal sites? The only I am aware of is sourcewatch.org. I only used sourcewatch.org in order to show the bias of newsmax.

No, this is not an ad-hominid attack. I have not attacked you personally in any way.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Give me two hours to forty eight hours to respond to your round three.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
StupidapeRonPaulConservativeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Note: I am posting only some of the RFD here, and I will post the remainder in the comments section. Pro had better conduct because Con went against the agreed upon round structure from the beginning twice: once in round 1 which should have just been acceptance, and twice in round 3 which should have been rebuttals to pro's arguments, but were not rebuttals and actually new arguments. Spelling and grammar goes to pro because there were many spelling and grammar mistakes made by con, one was difficult to understand when they said "Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. " which made no grammatical sense. Pro's arguments were all easy to understand grammatically.