The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
1 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...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,158 times Debate No: 26568
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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 in first round
Rayze

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for providing another opportunity for me to argue both sides of the global warming controversy with more leeway than the previous one which had me restricted to disprove its existence. I would also like to ask my opponent who has the BOP of this debate or if it is shared.

Definitions:

Definition of threat;
1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2: one that threatens
3: an indication of something impending
-http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of pollution;
1: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste; also : the condition of being polluted
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of pollute;
1 a : to make ceremonially or morally impure : defile
b : debase 1
2 a : to make physically impure or unclean : befoul, dirty
b : to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of greenhouse gases; any of various gaseous compounds (as carbon dioxide) that absorb infrared radiation, trap heat in the atmosphere, and contribute to the greenhouse effect.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Contentions;
Anthropogenic global warming is not a threat to humankind, and to label the effects of a natural phenomena as harmful because of human influence is false.

Global warming is not caused by pollutants but greenhouse gases (CO2) and solar radiation, unless my opponent is referring to the 2009 designation of CO2 as an air pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The designation itself is unusual considering that CO2 is a byproduct of respiration, and technically the designation could be interpreted as drop dead to humanity and to any living organism. kind of ironic for an agency tasked with balancing ecological concerns with human interests. -http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

Thanks for accepting. I did want arguments against GW to be posted in R1, but that's OK.

BOP is shared.

Here is the first 5 of "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change"[1]


1.Humans are currently emitting around 30 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year[2]. 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 [3].

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 [4].

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 [5].

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".[6][7]


[1]http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[2]http://cdiac.ornl.gov...
[3]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
[4]Ibid
[5]http://www.sciencemag.org...
[6]http://www.nature.com...
[7]https://docs.google.com...
Rayze

Con

I apologize for any perceived rudeness but I am frankly disappointed that my opponent would regurgitate "10 Indicators of a Human Fingerprint on Climate Change" as his argument since the source, while accurately stating the existence of global warming is inaccurate in its portrayal of CO2 as the main cause of global warming due to other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases.

The source also doesn't explain how global warming is a threat to humankind, nor does it imply global warming to be a threat either. My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. However the contention is false and misleading since CO2 is an end product of all plants and animals in order to breakdown sugars and nutrients. Also CO2 is not designated as a toxic or harmful gas by the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of the United Nations Economics Commission for Europe in accordance with the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's testing of chemicals. (1)(2)

A threat to humanity and the stability of geopolitics is the current hyped up rhetoric between Iran and Israel over Iran's nuclear program which could result in the creation of a nuclear warhead. With Israel threatening military attacks on Iranian nuclear enrichment plants. (3) Another economic threat to the world would be Iran's threat to attempt to blockade the straits of Hormuz if UN sanctions severely cripple its oil economy. (4) An even more obvious threat to international stability is the possibility of the chemical weapons stockpiled in Syria could fall into the hands of terrorist groups as the Syrian Civil War invites third party jihadists on the sides of either the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Regime. (5)

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(4) http://www.upi.com...
(5)http://news.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

"...other variables such as water vapor, soot, solar radiation and other green house gases.”

Water vapor isn’t a forcing agent. It’s a “feedback loop” as when CO2 levels go up, more water vapor gets in the atmosphere [1]. Soot (A.K.A black carbon) is only in the atmosphere for days to weeks, but CO2 is there for centuries.

“Short-lived climate forcers – methane, black carbon and ozone – are fundamentally different from longer-lived greenhouse gases, remaining in the atmosphere for only a relatively short time. Deep and immediate carbon dioxide reductions are required to protect long-term climate, as this cannot be achieved by addressing short-lived climate forcers.”[2]

“The source also doesn't explain how global warming is a threat to humankind, nor does it imply global warming to be a threat either.”

It wasn’t suppose to. There are some positive effects yet the negative outweigh these. The negative effects are

Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures [3]
Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]
Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin [5]
Substantial negative impacts to marine ecosystems [6][7][8]
Spread in mosquite-borne diseases such as Malaria and Dengue Fever [9]
and so much more [10]

“My opponent also follows the EPA designation that CO2 is an air pollutant that directly harms humans. “

The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. [11]

This is a much broader definition. Also Title 1, Part A, Section 7408 states

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency [12] (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

Greenhouse gases including CO2 fit the Clean Air acts definition of air pollution.

Furthermore Encyclopedia Brittanica defines pollution as

"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." [13]

Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems.

Clearly it’s a pollutant.

“A threat to humanity and the stability of geopolitics is the current hyped up rhetoric between Iran and Israel over Iran's nuclear program which could result in the creation of a nuclear warhead. With Israel threatening military attacks on Iranian nuclear enrichment plants. (3) Another economic threat to the world would be Iran's threat to attempt to blockade the straits of Hormuz if UN sanctions severely cripple its oil economy. (4) An even more obvious threat to international stability is the possibility of the chemical weapons stockpiled in Syria could fall into the hands of terrorist groups as the Syrian Civil War invites third party jihadists on the sides of either the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian Regime. “

OK, I don’t see what this has to do with global warming, but OK. Bit of a red herring here. If this truly is a threat, then we should deal with both.

[1] http://www.nasa.gov...
[2] Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone; United Nations Environment Programme, http://www.unep.org..., 2011
[3] http://www.pnas.org...
[4] http://www.pnas.org...
[5] http://www.agu.org...
[6] http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr...
[7] http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org...
[8] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
[9] http://www.decvar.org...
[10] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
[11] United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g)
[12] http://www.supremecourt.gov...
[13] http://www.britannica.com...
Rayze

Con

"Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts [4]"
Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination.(1) Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc. (2). Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture (3).

I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. While his use of the 2007 supreme court case is commendable, critics of the designation of CO2 as a pollutant such as S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction."(4).

The paragraph that my opponent dismisses as a red herring, "A threat to humanity... Syrian Regime. (5)" is actually not a red herring. The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change".

I'd also like to point out that my opponent's argument "Increasing CO2 levels have direct affects to our environment. Such as, the ocean absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, leading to acidification which messes with marine ecosystems." is somewhat inaccurate. Granted Water's pH has went down from approximately 8.2 to 8.1 which is in terms of technical semantics an increase in acidity. [However pH is measured from 1-14 with 1-6 being acidic, 7 as neutral, and 8-14 as basic or alkaline. (5)] Also this decrease in pH has been expected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report World Group 1, which also states that the oceans are alkaline not acidic. (6) My opponent also contends that marine life would be screwed up because of this decrease in alkalinity. However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.(7).

(1) http://www.aaas.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://www.google.com.sg...
(4) http://www.populartechnology.net...
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(6) http://www.ipcc.ch...
(7) http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

“Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination”

As I said global warming would contaminate the water. There’s nothing to dispute here as it’s not a rebuttal

Human water supplies have been dwindling due an increase in population size and contamination. Fire frequency increases are likely due to human carelessness through discarding cigarette butts, or vehicular sparks, etc.

This doesn’t mean a majority of fires are by this nor that warming temperature isn’t a threat

If a town is harboring escaped murders and death rates are increasing do we keep harboring murders because people can still die from car crashes?

“Desert expansion has occurred regardless of human interaction or not, but it is not affected by global warming and is defined as the process by which fertile land becomes desert, typically as a result of drought, deforestation, or inappropriate agriculture”

Inappropriate agriculture and drought are results of warming temperature as shown in the previous round.

“I would like to note that my opponent has ignored the merriam-webster definition of pollution and its clarification definition of pollute in R1 in order to bolster his claim that CO2 is a pollutant by introducing the Encyclopedia Brittanica definition instead. “

Webster’s definition isn’t very broad. Even then it’s defined as “environmental contamination” which I have shown CO2 causes.

S. Fred Singer state, "Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income.

CO2 does make plants grow, however it also makes plant defenses go down[1]. Plants can’t just grow solely on CO2, as the nitrogen won’t keep up with this CO2 causing harmful affects[2] Even if CO2 is good for plant growth this doesn’t mean it’s good or we should have more of it. I am unable to find exactly how the GNP will rise with warmer climate.

Even if CO2 isn’t labeled as a pollutant this doesn’t mean it’s good or not harmful. As it’s just semantics.

The argument is stated as an example of what a threat is similarly to your usage of "10 Indicators of a Human fingerprint on Climate Change".

It still has nothing to do with global warming. Its seems like Con is arguing semantics.

When ocean waters absorb CO2 they become acidic. That doesn't mean that oceans will become acid. Ocean life is very sensitive to even slight pH level changes. Any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment.

The acidity in global surface waters has increased by 30% in the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected to the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.

Agreed upon by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) said

"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."
- The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009[3]

When the surface waters become more acidic, it becomes much more difficult for marine life such as corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them. [4]

“However my opponent does not take into account the possibility of bacterial contamination of seawater that could harm marine life. For example, the bacteria, Vibrio tubiashii, is currently known to kill oysters, but it is unknown if Vibrio tubiashii is fatal to other shellfish.”

Is this bacteria affecting marine food chains and is this bacteria located in certain places or all over the globe? This fits with the analogy with the murders in the town.


Con only touched upon 2 of 5 affects of Global Warming and didn't fulfill his BOP by showing global warming isn't a threat

[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[2]http://www.nature.com...
[3]http://www.interacademies.net...
[4]http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Rayze

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent is resorting to plagiarism to bolster his claims that anthropogenic global warming is a threat to human kind.

My opponent's source four states, "As ocean waters absorb CO2 they become more acidic. This does not mean the oceans will become acid. Ocean life can be sensitive to slight changes in pH levels, and any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment.

The acidity of global surface waters has increased by 30% in just the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected through the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.

Endorsed by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) stated the following.

"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."
- The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009
As surface waters become more acidic, it becomes more difficult for marine life like corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them."

While my opponent states, "When ocean waters absorb CO2 they become acidic. That doesn't mean that oceans will become acid. Ocean life is very sensitive to even slight pH level changes. Any drop in pH is an increase in acidity, even in an alkaline environment.

The acidity in global surface waters has increased by 30% in the last 200 years. This rate of acidification is projected to the end of the century to accelerate even further with potentially catastrophic impacts to marine ecosystems.

Agreed upon by seventy academies of science from around the world, a June 2009 statement from the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) said

"The current rate of change is much more rapid than during any event over the last 65 million years. These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer."
- The InterAcademy Panel, June 1, 2009[3]

When the surface waters become more acidic, it becomes much more difficult for marine life such as corals and shellfish to form the hard shells necessary for their survival, and coral reefs provide a home for more than 25% of all oceanic species. Tiny creatures called pteropods located at the base of many oceanic food chains can also be seriously impacted. The degradation of these species at the foundation of marine ecosystems could lead to the collapse of these environments with devastating implications to millions of people in the human populations that rely on them. [4]"

For proof of plagiarism check http://www.skepticalscience.com...

According to plagiarism.org, my opponent has committed the plagiarism type, "The Too-Perfect Paraphrase" in which the writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. (In this case close to it.) Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information. http://www.plagiarism.org...
Citation 3 is from source 4 with the "June 2009" statement leading to the link http://www.interacademies.net... .

Also my opponent does not effectively refute my arguments in the case of Desert expansions, to which my opponent claims, "Inappropriate agriculture and drought are results of warming temperature as shown in the previous round." That is incorrect as inappropriate agriculture would include slash and burn agriculture which was extensively practiced throughout history well before anthropogenic global warming. http://geography.about.com...

For the contention of the causes of fire, and decreasing water supplies, my opponent pulls the straw man argument by stating, "As I said global warming would contaminate the water. There"s nothing to dispute here as it"s not a rebuttal. This doesn't mean a majority of fires are by this nor that warming temperature isn't a threat. If a town is harboring escaped murders and death rates are increasing do we keep harboring murders because people can still die from car crashes?" Pro has not referenced any contamination in human water supplies in the previous rounds, and pro does not properly refute the contention of causes of fire by not providing logical causes to fire instead opting for the red herring an appeal to emotions. This in turn results in the straw man fallacy as my opponent believes that he/she has sufficiently refuted my arguments when in reality my opponent has failed to do so.

My opponent engages in semantics while accusing me of semantics by stating, "Encyclopedia Brittanica defines pollution as"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form." And, "CO2 does make plants grow, however it also makes plant defenses go down[1]. Plants can"t just grow solely on CO2, as the nitrogen won"t keep up with this CO2 causing harmful affects[2] Even if CO2 is good for plant growth this doesn"t mean it"s good or we should have more of it. I am unable to find exactly how the GNP will rise with warmer climate. Even if CO2 isn"t labeled as a pollutant this doesn"t mean it"s good or not harmful. As it"s just semantics." Pro also attempts to justify his use of semantics by stating, "Webster"s definition isn"t very broad. Even then it"s defined as "environmental contamination" which I have shown CO2 causes.

Therefore I strongly urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
http://www.plagiarism.org...
Sources Cited (But Still Plagiarized)
"The Too-Perfect Paraphrase"
The writer properly cites a source, but neglects to put in quotation marks text that has been copied word-for-word, or close to it. Although attributing the basic ideas to the source, the writer is falsely claiming original presentation and interpretation of the information.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
How is it plagiarism if I cited it..... Also citation 4 of round 3 is about the water contamination
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Sounds good
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
Sorry, but I am kind of busy this weekend, and will be on a busier schedule November 15. I will accept your challenge on Monday October 29, on the condition that the debate will end before November 12.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
Magic8000RayzeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: -1 for plagiarism. But Con seems to ignore a lot of pro. Like the human indicators and threats. I don't know too much about this subject, but I would say arguments goes to pro