The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Stevethewriter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

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 2 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,180 times Debate No: 24874
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (2)

 

16kadams

Con

My opponent as PRO has the BOP, this shall not be negotiated.

Definitions:

CO2 emissions: "emissions of CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas for energy use. Carbon dioxide also enters the Atmosphere from burning wood and waste materials and from some industrial processes such as cement production. Emissions of CO2 from these sources are a relatively small part of global emissions and are not included in these statistics."[1]

In other words, it is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.

==> What we argue <==

PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists).
CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions.

In this debate I must provide a time frame. The little ice age - present.

1st round acceptance by PRO. No abusive arguments please.

[1] http://www.wikiprogress.org...
Stevethewriter

Pro


I thank my opponent Mr. Adams for Offering up a hopefully exciting and fun debate!

I am assuming that I will be arguing that humans are a major cause to global warming increases with C02 emissions.

My first point, is that C02 emissions are scientifically proven to be a mjor leading cause in the rise of global climate changes, IE Global warming.


"Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol."

http://timeforchange.org...


From the year 1991 to the year 2005, There has been a significant increase in harm done to the atmosphere, mainly due to C02 emissions. See picture.



"This graph best represents what is taking place world wide.

Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere.

As of beginning of 2007, the CO2 concentration is already at 380 ppm and it raises on average 2 - 3 ppm each year, so that the critical value will be reached in approximately 20 to 30 years from now."

The point here, is that C02 emissions DO harm the atmosphere. My opponent cannot prove that it doesn't because statistically, scientifically, and factually, the evidence stacks up.


What has happened recently?

"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle--both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution."

The carbon Dioxide emitted is MAN MADE.

The things we use everyday, emit vasts amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal, natural gas, and oil are prime examples of things that we humans use daily that attribute to harsh environmental conditions.

To be more specific, here is a graph that shows details on what things most commonly used to emit human made Carbon Dioxide.




The information cited above is from the Environmental Protection agency, and backed from a government based site.

http://www.epa.gov...




Without tryin to sounds to repetive, I don't really know how else to argue this point. It is man made. There are tons of statistics, data, analytics, etc, that I could continue citing that prove the point here.



Also, I am not entirely sure what my opponent is going to attempt to argue. In his first round, he says: "CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions"

What exactly do you mean by human emissions?

For example I am arguing what you said to argue, however I am also arguing that C02 emissions are man made. I ask this because I don't want to have any confusions.

None-the-less I have uphelp the BOP in this debate so far, as asked in round 1.

I ask that any further clarifications on the topic be made in the following rebuttal, and I will respond in the like.

Good luck to you Mr. Adams in this debate, and I look forward to a fun and thought provoking debating process!

Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

First round acceptance…

My opponent broke a rule, but he apologized and it is a common mistake. I don’t see any voting penalties would be just, however I believe his case is irrelevant due to this. To make it relevant, though, he can re-post it next round or he can totally change his case to accommodate the debate. In any case, no voting penalties should occur. Just the usual “its irrelevant, post it next round” would be a more just punishment.

Correlations

It is important to note in statistics correlations occur, but this does not mean causation is occurring. Everyone in the climate agrees: there is a CO2 correlation involved with climate. The question is how strong it is, and if other correlations exist.

Now, the correlation of CO2 and climate is not considered “good”. Understanding correlations for the argument is not very complicated. A 1.0 correlation (r=1) is a perfect correlation; this would make a good case for causation. A 0.9 correlation (r=0.9_ would be considered a “good” correlation. 0.5 (r=0.5) would be considered a “fair” correlation. And something above .5 means something can have a large effect or a visual one on climate, though something in the .7-1.0 range would be ideal. 0.25 (r=0.25) is a poor correlation. And 0 (or negative) is no match at all.

So, what is the CO2 correlation? Not surprisingly, it is under the .5 marks. But if CO2 was the main driver of climate, it should have a fairly high correlation, shouldn’t it? It’s impossible for something to have a causation effect if it has no correlation. But not only must the CO2 correlation be examined, but so should other factors (PDO + AMO, and the sun). Alarmist believers (believe CO2 warming occurs) usually cite Maua Loa as a main CO2 source as it shows large increases in CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Ice core data also shows CO2 count is rising. When examining the temperature and CO2 data, the correlation is striking. CO2 only correlates on a .44 scale (r = .44). This means the correlation rates from “fair” to “poor”, which is bad news for an alarmist. It shows the correlation is not very strong.

Correlations for other factors, though, seem a lot more promising. The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much better correlation then CO2. Its correlation to surface temperatures is relatively strong, .57 (r = 0.57). This means the correlation is rated between “fair” and “good”.

The correlation between the two main ocean currents, PDO and AMO, is particularly striking. The correlation is .83, the paper argues the correlation is in the “good” range, showing promise for this factor in the modern warming. It also shows its R2 is stronger then the CO2 correlation by a factor of almost two.

Te scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). IF CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade?

Supporting references: [1][2]

Why its unlikely human CO2 causes global warming

I am not doubting CO2 can cause warming, as it is part of the greenhouse effect, I doubt, however, whether or not human caused CO2 can have a significant effect. So here are a few facts, which are not in dispute. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is relatively small, it is a trace gas, and it is under one percent. The atmospheric CO2 is about 388 ppm, now slightly higher. Now, the amount of that CO2 that is human causes it also very small, it is under 5%. The number of 5% is always changing it is usually less. So, lets do the math. CO2 is 0.4% of the atmosphere; lets say humans create 4% of that (a valid estimate) that means 0.0016% of the atmosphere is human created CO2. To simplify the numbers, that’s 1.6 parts per 100,000. Imagine a building with 100,000 people in it emitting heat making it really hot in there, and people claim those 1.6 people are causing the temperature hike. They kick them out of the building. What effect would it have? It would be immeasurable [3].

Does it sound logical 1.6 parts per 100,000 would cause global warming?

Other factors

There are many other factors, two already discussed is Solar and the PDO/AMO ocean currents, and these are the most discussed. Others discussed are notably cosmic rays. Research on cosmic rays makes the most interesting point, though: our galaxy.

Yes, our galaxy might be why the thermometer is rising, that is why the IPCC is screaming. Though they ignore this theory… anyway, our position in the galaxy might be the reason we are warming up. Our earth is on the edge of our galaxy – it’s a suburb – and every 225 million years it circles around and makes one “cosmic year”. Our galaxy has many stars that come out of the sides like scythes. It’s like a ninja throwing star. Every 135 years we enter a more populated part of the galaxy; it then receives unusually large amounts of cosmic rays bombarding us. Less cosmic rays, more heating less cooling. Likewise, more rays more cooling (they cause clouds). We are currently in an area with fewer rays, meaning we are obviously going to face large amounts of warming [3].

Another convincing theory is the 1,500-year solar cycle mainly pushed by S. Fred Singer. Though other studies prove the effect. One study argued the 1,500-year cycle (+/- 500 years) did indeed exist, and it was very possible that this could be the cause of recent rapid climate change, and the IPCC overlooking the theory is naïve. In other words, significant evidence proves the point and it is a convincing theory for natural caused global warming [4].

And as I am on room constraint I will have one more factor I look at: PDO + AMO possibilities. As proven earlier, there is already a strong case for this as it has a 0.83 R correlation. The paper earlier argued there was a strong correlation between ocean currents and global temperatures, and that it should be a candidate for the cause of climate change. Anthony Watts provides a few graphs for us, also:

[Without regressions]

[with regressions]

http://wattsupwiththat.com...

Conclusion:

Natural factors, not human CO2, causes [current] warming. And it is highly unlikely the minute amount of human emisions is causing the warming we currently face.


Sources:

[1] http://wattsupwiththat.com...

[2] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010)

[3] MacRae, Paul. “ False Alarm: Global Warming-- Facts versus Fears.” Victoria, B.C.: Spring Bay, 2010.

[4] Charles D. Keeling and Timothy P. Whorf “The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change” National Academy of Sciences, Volume 97, Number 8, pp. 3814-3819, (April 2000)

Stevethewriter

Pro

Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and welcome once again to our debate! I deeply apologize (as said in the comments section of this debate) for posting my opening arguments when Mr. Adams clearly said that first round is for acceptance. I hope the audience doesn't vote against me for this, as I am hoping to offer a fruit debating, and learning experience with Mr. Adams here today. I would also like to thank Mr. Adams for acknowledging this in his last round and wish him luck in further rounds of this debate! :D

REBUTTALS

To begin, I would like to clarify a few definitions in order to make a lot of the previous round make sense.

Correlations: Statistics-the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show
a tendency to vary together.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


In this specifically we are talking about how much influence C02 Emissions have an effect on our global climate change.

" So, what is the CO2 correlation? Not surprisingly, it is under the .5 marks. But if CO2 was the main driver of climate, it should have a fairly high correlation, shouldn't’t it? It’s impossible for something to have a causation effect if it has no correlation."

I am going to argue, to the full effect, that any correlation found in C02 emissions is harmful. My job as the Pro stated in the opening round, is to prove that CO2 emissions cause global warming. Period. My opponent admits in his own arguments that some correlation between climate change and C02 emissions does occur. Technically, this is all I need to win the debate.

It seems that we can't deny that climate change is effected directly by C02 emissions.

"data from respected scientists that point to a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature rises over the past 800,000 years. Similarly, advocates for the contrary argument of solar variation causing climate change rely on data that points to correlations between solar activity and changes in temperature. In both cases, correlations exist;"

http://www.nowpublic.com...


"Correlations for other factors, though, seem a lot more promising. The correlation with the solar irradiance shows a much better correlation then CO2. Its correlation to surface temperatures is relatively strong, .57 (r = 0.57). This means the correlation is rated between “fair” and “good” "

The problem I have with this is that this argument stems global warming from natural causes, where as clearly you are advocating warming is caused by human emissions. Again, my goal here is to prove that C02 in correlation to human emissions of C02, adversely effect the climate in some way. Even then, all I have to prove is the C02 emissions provide global harms.

"The scientific paper then examines data within the last ten years, the results? A CO2 correlation is no match at all. The correlation is only 0.02. (r = 0.02). IF CO2 was the main driver of climate, then why isn’t the correlation higher in the past century, and so low within the last decade?"

I do have a problem with this information as it seems to be un backed by any source of logical entity. In fact I looked up the source my opponent cited, and found this on C02 emissions effecting global climate changes.



The result is striking to say the least. This information is cited in the source by the carbon dioxide information analysis center.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov...

No matter how much my opponent would like to deny the information presented, the stats speak for themselves. Global warming IS a problem, and C02 Emissions, whether man made or natural made, are contributing.

The entire point to this rebuttal is no matter how much C02 emissions effect the climate, my job is to prove that they do in fact, effect the climate. My opponent provides plenty of information from a source that seems to have a questionable logical entity. I have conflicting results to his r2= .44 theory from Government sites.

It seems Mr. Adams entire argument here prays on the validity of the source. But even then, the source strictly contradicts his goal in this debate! I thus ask the readers to deem this argument irrelevant.

OTHER FACTORS

Again we are seeing another completely irrelevant argument. The entire point of this argument from my opponent is to prove that their are other causes to global warming, and that the position of the galaxy is a leading cause.
I agree that there are other causes for global warming. In fact, if my opponent were to clarify in the opening round that I would be arguing purely that C02 emissions were the ONLY cause for global warming, I myself would not have accepted this debate. Thus I ask my opponent and the audience what the point to this argument is. I have no rebuttals to it, because I agree with it! But absolutely NOTHING in this argument, argues anything to do with lack of C02 being a prime factor in global warming. Moving on.

Conclusion

I am concerned as to my opponents motives in this debate. I offer him the utmost respect when I say this: pretty much the entire case is just a bunch of thrown around sources and graphs, mixed in with irrelevant arguments.
I honestly have no clue where he was planning on going with his previous arguments.

None the less, feel I have upheld my burden in this debate.
My burden is to prove that C02 has an effect on climate change.
I have the burden of proof, and have fulfilled that burden of proof several times throughout the debate.
I can find hundreds more sources that go to prove my point, and so can anyone else by simply Google searching the subject. But in order to get the most accurate information, I have cited 2 government cites, just to be sure that the information presented isn't faulty.
On the other hand, my opponent has won this debate for me! His sources, his arguments, they all say that C02 has an effect on climate change. While we have dis-parraging results from each other, nonetheless, my opponent cannot admit that even C02 alone wouldn't cause an adverse effect on the climate, say 100 years ago. Even with his arguments being taken for face value, we can assume that in thousands of years, global warming can and will occur simply from C02 effects on the atmosphere.

I thank my opponent for responding, and look forward to the next arguments. Thankyou for reading audience!
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con



Correlations



My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change. Arguing the correlation exists does not win the point, as I agree it exists, but the correlation is not strong enough to mean it is the “main” factor in climate change, therefore unless you prove the correlation is significantly high (like PDO) you cannot win this debate.



And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph. The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data. Nearly all satellites show little to negative warming in the last decade. And, as stated, the correlation in the last decade was only 0.02. Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t. The correlation is therefore broken and the minute correlation shows human CO2 emissions likely cannot play a major role.



My opponent continues global warming is a problem, I agree with him I never denied its existence, but we differ on whether CO2 is the driving factor. And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures. The facts where presented, the current correlation since 1880 was not strong enough to mean CO2 was a large factor, as it was under a .5 R correlation. The PDO (a natural forcing) had higher correlations by factors of two. And the suns correlation was higher by .10 R points. In other words, this point was not refuted. To the naked eye the graph is appealing, but to one that can actually read statistics presented in round two the correlation is extremely weak. So the facts show CO2 is not the main driver of climate. Examine my opponent’s graph. I made it easy:


I suck at photo editing so I just threw on some paint.





Every place I put a line is where correlation broke. Look at it. We see 3 – 4 (depending if you slur the first one together) areas where correlation fails! So even using my opponents eye appealing data, its flawed. And when you use the facts, its flawed. Either way, its apparent CO2 is not a main driver of climate. I also could have added even more as the rise in temperture in the 30s-40s was faster then CO2. So its another break in correlation. It's a very weak correlation is what it gets right down too.



My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point.



Other factors



You are arguing the main factor in global warming is CO2, which you have failed to do. I offered many other factors, which together can explain for all of the warming, occurred. This is blatantly obvious. I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth.



Clarification was not needed, at all. I have shown CO2 logically based on science is not the [main] driver of climate and that other natural forgings are much stronger then man-made emissions. In reality, I extend arguments here as you have failed to prove that the PDO, with a stronger correlation, cannot account for the warming or the sun, with a stronger correlation and as the only heat source of our planet could not cause the majority of this warming.



My opponent’s case



My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate.



Conclusion:



I have done a few things:




  1. Proven a CO2 correlation is extremely weak, and the correlation it has is not sufficient to prove it’s the main factor in the current climate

  2. I have shown, using my opponents data nonetheless, that the correlation is not as perfect as he makes it out to be and that the correlation in the last decade is almost zero – in other words no match at all.

  3. I have shown natural forgings have correlations sometimes of over twice the amount of CO2, and that this means it is likely a larger player in climate then CO2 is.



Basically in sum: the debate is over whether or not CO2 is the main factor in the current warming, and my opponent has failed to prove it is the main factor, and has failed to prove why natural forgings cannot explain the rise. In that case, by logic, Con wins.



You know and my opponent having the BOP and not having a case… that means I just win by default as he has not fulfilled his burden.



Stevethewriter

Pro

Dear audience, please excuse my opponent for his outrageous conduct. During this round, if anyone has been manipulated by the fiendish approach my opponent has set, I will set them straight in this round.

REBUTTALS

"My opponent claims any correlation is harmful, but this actually still concedes the point. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, which is what we are debating, then it stands to reason a correlation between CO2 and temperature would be strong. If it was a large factor, it should have a correlation of some significance, though as shown its correlation was under the .5 marks and is therefore NOT significantly correlated enough to be considered a large factor in climate change."

This, Mr. Adams, is why I am concerned on your motives of conduct, if you are willing to stoop to such a low in this debate.

I will quote what YOU said in the opening round, in which I agreed to and accepted.

"PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists).
CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. "

You have lost this debate, because you have admitted to C02 emissions factoring into global warming! You made a very poor mistake in doing this Mr. Adams. Next time, I advise you to pay closer attention to such things. ALL I have to do in this debate is to PROVE TO YOU THAT C02 EMISSIONS EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE!

I have done this plenty of times, and can continue doing so as much as I please, because this is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN!


"And good, my opponent found the study! And it’s exactly what I cited! One must note, however, the correlation looks strong in the graph but when one looks at the facts we see this is false. We see multiple breaks in the correlation where the trend slows when CO2 rates climb and the opposite occurring on many points in the graph."

I must say, I laugh out loud when I read this. You must not have read your source very well, because it actually incriminates your point. And when you are called out on it, you say that it is FALSE!

There, dear audience, you have heard it straight from my opponents own mouth. He is saying that the sources he has used in this debate are completely and utterly FALSE!

Thus we cannot credit anything he has said in this ENTIRE debate, as apparently his sources all show mis-conducted information. This, however I already knew, and hopefully the audience did as well, given the vast amount of research and evidence I have shown you all strictly contradicting his evidence.


"The graph also is faulty as it ignores the correlation in the last decade by using faulty data."

Let's keep in mind, that this is the graph from my OPPONENTS own source. That aside, this was cited within the source from the government site, that I listed above.
My opponent is trying to dis-credit the carbon dioxide information analysis center of the information on c02 effecting the climate change. His basis for this is extremely unwarranted, and he provides absolutely no bearing of proof to back this claim up! He is basically filling his entire round with Fluff and nonsense, and I hope the audience understands this when reading the debate.

"Based on greenhouse theory the correlation should be higher, and as temperatures have no risen in the last decade shatter the correlation. Why? Simple. If CO2 was the driver of climate temperatures should have continued to rise, but they didn’t."

Except for it did! Your sources were wrong, you know they were wrong, and admit to them being wrong! So that must mean the information I provided proving that C02 emissions effecting global warming strongly in the past 10 years must be accurate. See all the graphs above.

"And your graph fails to refute the point that CO2 does not have a significant enough correlation too temperatures."

Lol which one, pray, may I ask? Because I have shown 3-4 different graphs, statistics, and other outstanding information that proves that C02 DOES effect the climate. In fact you have too. Until you can dis-prove MY evidence with statistics, or graphs, mine holds the most priority at the moment.

Next my opponent does some weird sketches on my graph. Again this is another attempt to manipulate the audience.
He is saying that the graph DOESN'T show that C02 emissions effect the climate. If you look at the graph, you will see that as the C02 Emissions rise, so does the temperature. Especially within the last 20 years, that graph shows imminent temperature reports rising subsequently with the C02 emissions.

"Every place I put a line is where correlation broke."

Again, you are mis-understanding my goal in this debate. My goal is to prove that with the rise of C02 emissions, comes the rise of temperatures. Never once in the opening round did you say that I must prove that ONLY C02 emissions were a factor in global climate change. However, I HAVE proven that climate change does occur AS A RESULT of C02 emissions.

That's it! That's all I needed to win this debate, as is CLEARLY defined by my opponent in R1! His continued pursuance of the opinion that C02 emissions do not effect the climate change very much, are blatantly going against his win condition for this debate.

"My source contradicts me? You get your data from a government source, mine from the SEPP. And when you look at it, it does not contradict anything. It shows the correlation for CO2 is not adequate to prove the side you are arguing, and the data you presented does not prove a point."

Yes your source MAJORLY contradicts you and your goal in this debate. And your wrong, as it actually shows a major correlation between temperature rises and C02.

" I have shown the PDO correlation is twice as strong as a CO2 correlation. I also showed a sun correlation is 10 points stronger. I then showed that it is possible our current position in the galaxy and that relative to the sun via cosmic rays is a good theory, which trumps the evidence CO2 alarmists, have put forth. "

Listen. I DO NOT CARE. I never once said in this ENTIRE debate, nor did I have to, that C02 emissions were the only cause of global warming. I have proven that C02 emissions DO harm the environment. That much you CANNOT dis-agree with. Your conduct in this debate is superfluously appalling. Again, however, I would probably attribute that to your age.

" My opponent as pro has the BOP; this was established in round one. It was also established that round was for acceptance and if you posted your case would be irrelevant. You posted. It’s irrelevant. Therefore you have the BOP and have no case to prove the statement, therefore lose the debate."

Is that all you care about, is winning a debate based on a technicality? Despite the fact that I have PROVEN that C02 emissions are a huge factor in global temperature rising? Dear audience, my opponent attempts to ignore logic and valid information and is hoping to steal a win on the debate because of it, though he excused this in the beginning of his last round.

The evidence is still there, it's still valid, and I do not care if you choose to ignore it. I will leave that up to the audience to decide.


CONCLUSION

My opponent has shown extremely poor conduct throughout this entire debate, and I hope the audience sees this as clearly as I have. My opponent attempts to ignore the light of all the evidence I have provided.

He completely contradicts his own sources, which actually just help me out. I recommend the audience go through and read his source and find all the contradicting evidence he has to offer.

My opponent says I have not upheld the burden of proof. If anyone buys this I strongly suggest they re-read that in which I have offered. I remain, that the evidence in R1 is still valid, and in R2, and none of it should be discounted on a technicality.

I really hope for my opponents mental health, that he educates himself further on such subjects before starting debates on them.

With that said, I strongly urge the voters to vote PRO.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con


Correlations



As we can see, my opponent is playing a semantics game in attempt to salvage his defeated case. When looking at the facts, though, we see his semantic attempt is laughable. For example, in debate the resolution is like the constitution, a law of the land, correct? Yes. The wording in the resolution reads “driven”. But the definition is propelled by something [1]. Based on the definition it is extremely clear that the resolution means CO2 is the main cause, based on that fact my opponent already loses the debate.



Now my opponent’s quote of myself also proves my point, as cause is defined as to make something happen [2]. The syntax of this also shows cause is usually defined as the “main” thing. For example, CO2 may be a factor, but is not the cause. And it is likely human CO2 can have the effect as it is given by alarmists.



And even earlier in the round it is made blatantly clear that Pro would argue that CO2 would cause the majority of warming. Based on the resolution and my position as ‘con’, it means I would be against the resolution. The definitions of CO2 prove: “In other words, it [Co2] is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming.” As con, it is obvious I am against this hypothesis furthering the claim that the debate is about the majority of warming.



My opponents semantically driven claim fails. And as he never even touched my facts, I extend the argument.



In hopes my opponent returns to the debate, and stops accusations of wrongdoings, which I apologize for if he truly thinks they exist, I will build upon the point I made earlier: there is no significant correlation between temperature and co2; especially within the last decade.



My opponent never counters the claim in which CO2 has not a significant enough correlation to be the main factor in warming; as for it to be major the correlation should be in the range the PDO is currently in. In the majority of the time, the CO2 correlation was lacking, however the correlation really only was strong between 1980 – 90, and 1925 – 30. Note that in either of these years the correlation, overall, is extremely weak. The paper concludes, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.”[3]



Other then the fact this clearly demonstrates natural factors are a more likely candidate to cause warming let me emphasis the last decade point. If the theory was correct, unstoppable global warming and high correlations would exist that would spiral out of control and we would melt! But as usual alarmist science fails. For something to be correct, it must have the ability to predict phenomena. For example, the periodic table of the elements has predicted what many of the missing elements are/where, and many have been found exactly as predicted. Co2 theory suggests warming should be extremely high… but it was zero. With a correlation of almost zero in the last decade, it essentially proves that Co2 is not a major factor and the science in which it was built is small, and non-existent [3].



No correlation no bang, no bang pro loses. He says many times my source says differently, without direct quotations from it. I have cited it many times, and took stuff out of its conclusions. Let me repeat, “Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the oceans and sun than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.



You where saying about lying? And what evidence? A graph which I disproved and showed its correlations extremely weak, and that the PDO correlation is impeccable? As we can see, my opponent has offered no evidence other then a graph, which has weak correlation. And the graph is in my source… and the writer shows weak correlation…



I prefer not to ask readers to read links, but to prove I am not lying read the summary of the paper here: http://wattsupwiththat.com...




Other factors



My opponent goes on a rampage. He doesn’t care. See paragraph 1-3 under correlations. He needs to prove these natural factors do not cause the majority of global warming, and that CO2 is a likely candidate. But as he cannot do this he goes into ad homeneim attacks which I have been attempting to avoid in this debate. But the funny thing is a 14 year old with newly found testosterone is keeping his cool more then a fully-grown man…



So instead of rebutting this he just dismisses it based on his former semantics. These where rebutted and the point is extended. So instead of attacking my opponent, I will build upon the case already created.



Lets first look at solar, a common sense look as it is the only light bulb in the oven. Many studies have come out, with little media attention no less, that make strong cases for solar forgings in climate. Sunspot number is an accepted proxy for measuring the intensity of the suns wrath.




NIPCC 2011



As we can see, there is extremely large correlation, and that the sun spot number and climate is extremely correlated. And when broken into the last century, has a stronger correlation then CO2 [4].



PDO is also considered a large factor in the current warming, and its statistical correlation is extremely high and should never be considered unworthy as a component in warming [4].



Conclusions:



My opponent threw all his eggs in two baskets: ad homeneim and semantics. Neither where justified, and he has failed to fulfill his burden of proof, which was given to him in round one. This is an obvious victory for con.





[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...


[3] Joseph D’aleo, “US Temperatures and Climate factors since 1895”Science and public policy institute, (2010)


[4] S. Fred Singer et al., “Climate Change Reconsidered. 2011 interim report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” The Heartland Institute, (2011)


Stevethewriter

Pro

Stevethewriter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Dear Steve seems to have left us.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ok. Fear all you want, your being schooled by a 14 year old.
Posted by Stevethewriter 4 years ago
Stevethewriter
Thankyou for sharing your opinion about me.

I am sorry to 16kadams, and YYW or to anyone else I have offended. I am just becoming very dis-interested in this site, if the conduct is set to where one debater can propose what his opponent will be arguing for, and then directly contradict himself within a debate. And then in that same debate, have the gall to say that I didn't uphold my burden of proof, over a TECHNICALITY!

I take back the comment when I called him a liar, that was excessive, but if 16kadams is a "prominent: member here, I fear for this site.

In fact as I read over a lot of his debates, I don't seem to understand how he has won some of them. The voters of this site seem keen on voting without actually reading what is proposed in a debate.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Steve, a word of advice:

You called out a well known and recognized debater on this site in a manor characterized by ostentation and truculence. You then had the gaul to send me a friend request -of all things- informing me that you didn't appreciate my telling you to "stop b!tching and let the debate finish in peace." I get that you're new here, and this time I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a petulant little troll. But in the future, it would be very much to your service not to conduct yourself like a petulant little troll.

With that noted, good day.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists).

Cause - Good or sufficient reason
http://dictionary.com...

Fairly clear...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
The resolution is like the law of the land in debate
Posted by Stevethewriter 4 years ago
Stevethewriter
Next time clarify in your opening round.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Driven - Caused, sustained, or stimulated
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Read the resolution.

k thx bye
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Steve, stop b!tching and let the debate finish in peace.
Posted by Stevethewriter 4 years ago
Stevethewriter
16k, you are a liar and a cheater. I would have never ever taken this debate, if I knew how low you morals were. GO AND RE-READ YOUR ROUND 1.

You said that all I needed to do was prove that C02 emissions effect climate change. You cannot deny that you said this.

If you deny this further, you will just be showing everyone else how much of a blatant, incompent, idiotic, liar you are. I have never seen such poor conduct in my life.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
16kadamsStevethewriterTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: :)
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
16kadamsStevethewriterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO forfeited, and acted like a douche.