The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Climate Change is happening

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 669 times Debate No: 72400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




I was challenged to this out of nowhere. I'll just use this round for acceptance, and I urge my opponent to provide some arguments. Citations are a nice way to back up facts, but they are not a substitute for arguing. I look forward to my opponent's first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Climate Change is causing the Earth to warm up measurably, and there are already signs of disaster.
I argue that this is happening because there are scientific facts to prove it.
Out of 918 peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject, 0% disagreed that climate change is happening,
but in newspaper articles, 53% were unsure. This proves that climate change is happening, but scientists are having trouble conveying the information and other data to the people of the world.


Note: following argument copy and pasted from a previous debate of mine.


My opponent is stating a specific scientific theory is true, and as the side making a positive assertion. She holds the burden of proof. If I simply negate her arguments without forwarding any of my own that should be enough to win this debate. On top of her having the BOP she has another obstacle to overcome. She has to prove 2 things while I merely have to prove 0. She must prove that A. Global warming is real and B. that it is also man made. So if she proves global warming is real but fails to show that it is man made than she has lost this debate.

The norm is to make opening arguments in round 2, rebuttals in rund 3 and counter rebuttals in round 4. I will not deviate from the norm this debate.


A lot of the global warming debate has been made political. Scientists are engaging in a cover up to sweep all evidence that climate change isn't occurring, under the rug. It's no mystery that these scientists with all their university indoctrination into liberal thinking are themselves big liberals. Global warming is used as a political tool to increase the size and role of the federal govenment and if it's proven to be false then it's a big tool that is lost. It's sad but too many scientists are willing to engage in this coverup to help their team win. The truth simply doesn't matter to them. All that matters is thateir team can hijact the eenvironmentalist movement for ther own selfish causes.

In November of 2009 a bunch of climate scintists e-mails were hacked into. [1] These E-mails actually show scientists actively engaging in suppression of evidence.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."[2]

The trick he is rferring to is using a hockey stick type of graph to make the data hide a cooling trend. [3]

"Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we"re throwing out all post-1960 data "cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data "cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we"ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley"s!

... Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were

Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures " another way of "correcting" for the decline, though may be not defensible![Tim Osborne]"[4]

"Solution 1: fudge the issue. Just accept that we are Fast-trackers and can therefore get away with anything. [Mike Hulme] In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "[5]

I could literally show hundreds of emails where these scientists speak of fudging the numbers or doing tricks with the data or applying artificial adjustments but space is limited on this debate.


According to a report by the Daily Mail. The MET office has released data showin no global warming for the last 16 years. The temperature of the Earth has been remaining relativiley steady. [6] Here is a cart to llustrate my point.

It's pretty much scientific consensus that the Earth has not been heating up for the past 10 years and longer. There can not be global warming if the globe isn't warming. In fact the term climate change is slowly replacing the term global warmig so that any change in the Earths climate can be used to suit the left's political agenda.


The arctic ice has increased by over 50% according to a report by the ESE. [7] Despite the fact that Al Gore and other advocates for global warming state that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now.[8] Strong evidence actually shows that the ice cap are getting bigger and stronger.

It's only a matter of time beforethey start claiming it's global cooling again like they did in the 40s through 70s and advocatng for nuking the poles like they did back in that time. I'm glad people were smarter than to take the liberal's advice to nuke the poles then. I wish they were justa little bit smarter now.


Rebuttals are coming next round. I'll leave his round by stating that the Ice caps are getting bigger and have not disappeared like people who say global warming is real predicted 5 years ago. Also the Earth's temperature is also pretty steady sowe have multple forms of evidence that the Earth is not warming and when you add that on top of the uncovered emails showing a conspiracy in the scientific community to fudge numbers perform trickery and just plain lie to foward their theory, it's pretty obvious global warming is a lie.

I leave you with some predictions people who have forwarded this theory to advance a political agenda have made

"Because of the rising sea level, due to global warming, in the next few decades " up to 60 percent of the present population of Florida may have to be relocated" Al Gore 1992

"senior research scientist" David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within "a few years," snowfall would become "a very rare and exciting event" in Britain. "Children just aren"t going to know what snow is," he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."[9]

Here is the funny thing aboutglobal warming alarmists not only will they say increased temperaues on Earth will make snowing a thing of the pas but when it does snow real heavy they also somehow blame that on global warming. So what is it? Does global warming lead to more snow or less?

"Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, made some dramatic predictions in 1990 while working as "chief scientist" for the Environmental Defense Fund. By 1995, he said then, the "greenhouse effect" would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."[9]








Debate Round No. 2


AlexandertheGreat919 forfeited this round.


Vote con, the coward ran off.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
There were 2 different climate gates. I've skimmed through both inquiries. Separate scientific fields that confirm global warming in a secondary way have no agenda, but I certainly think climatologists have an agenda and are more likely to see and interpret the numbers in a way that agrees with their belief system.

Climatologists in my opinion are definitely guilty of at least trying to make things seem like a bigger deal than they actually are.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
Wylted have you read the climategate inquiries or nah
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited the final round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. While Con calling Pro a coward wasn't necessary, it did not outweigh the forfeiture. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate S&G. Arguments - Con. Pro utterly failed to present any rebuttals to Con's second round. As Pro, he had the BOP to uphold his affirmation of the resolution at hand. In failing to do so, by leaving Con's arguments to stand unchallenged, he automatically loses the debate since he failed to uphold his end. Regardless of this, I found Con's rebuttals to be pretty solid as well, he effectively covered Pro's points, whereas Pro did no such thing. Hence, I lean towards Con in this one. Sources - Con. Pro simply utilized sources to make his arguments for him, whereas Con accurately applied sources to strengthen his own arguments. For using sources properly Con wins source points.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by QTAY21 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Not much to say. Pro's argument paled in comparison.