The Instigator
hopkinst
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lee001
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Climate change is real and caused by humans

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 3 votes the winner is...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 782 times Debate No: 70755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

hopkinst

Pro

I will be arguing that climate change is real and caused by humans, and is an urgent problem for the world at large. Good luck proving me wrong, since it's been proven right.
Lee001

Con

Since pro didn't clearly define climate change, I assume he means "Global Warming" .
I as Con will be arguing that Global Warming is not real. The BoP is on Pro.

Lets define global warming: "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change"

Here are my reason as to why Global Warming is not real,

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man"s activity.
2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth"s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth"s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher " more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists " in a scandal known as "Climate-gate" " suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

Try and prove me otherwise.

Source:

https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
hopkinst

Pro

First of all, let me apologize for not making it clear what I meant by "climate change." Global warming is actually an outdated term when it comes to climate change, and most scientists and climate activists prefer to now call it "climate change." Although overall temperatures are gradually getting higher, many people try to argue against the existence of climate change by referencing years when temperatures have been lower than normal. This winter has been a perfect example of this. Therefore, when I speak of "climate change" I am talking about the overall shift in global temperature, weather patterns, and other climate factors that we are already seeing today. Sorry for not making that clear.

Because the evidence for actual climate change is unequivocal, with 97% of global scientists supporting it, I will not take most of this argument to show the evidence. The big thing we're debating is whether or not it is caused by humans.

To start with evidence that climate change is happening, let me just list a few. First of all, ocean levels have been rising for the past century, with a total rise of about 6.7 inches (which may not sound like much, but globally has large implications, especially if it continues.) In addition, the rate of rising has doubled in the last decade compared with the last century, showing that temperatures are rising, and rising fast. Second, temperatures have been rising since 1880, and the most warming has happened since the 1970s, with the twenty hottest years having been since then. Third, the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has been declining rapidly over the past several decades. Fourth, since 1950, the number of record high temperatures has been increasing, while the number of record low temperatures has been decreasing. Fifth, since the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of the oceans has increased by about 30 percent! I will stop listing evidence here, so I can move on to why climate change is caused by humans, but I would end by reminding Con, as I said before, the 97 PERCENT OF ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH THIS THEORY. Does that not mean anything?

Now for some rebuttals against why Con said before. First of all to respond to what you said about how much CO2 humans release into the atmosphere compared to the amount released by the rest of the planet. It sounds like your saying that we have released 0.00022 percent of all CO2 ever released by the earth's mantle. This number doesn't have much relevance, and I will use a different one to respond. Humans currently release about 30 GT (giga-tons) of carbon each year, while the earth emits about 780 GT a year. While this may seem to show that humans aren't the problem, it actually shows that we are. Before we began emitting so much CO2, the system was in balance, with the earth and ocean absorbing the 780 GT that it emitted. This kept the CO2 level in the atmosphere between 180 and 280 parts per million for 800,000 years. With the added human carbon emission, the CO2 level is at 400 parts per million and still rising.

For another rebuttal, I would respond to what you say about how significant climactic changes have happened throughout geologic time. This is true, but this does not make the climate change happening right now any less relevant. These changes in climate you speak of are called "Milankovitch cycles", which have to do with the periodic oscillation of the earth's tilt, the precession of the tilt, and changes in earth's elliptical orbit. During each of these warming cycles, CO2 and temperature levels have risen and fallen TOGETHER.

Also, the whole sun theory you mention at the end of your argument was supported not by "a large body of scientific research", but by one man, Wei-Hock Soon, who got $1.2 million funding from fossil-fuel companies.

I will end with this: climate change is an extremely important and urgent topic that needs to be addressed by the world. People like you (and I mean no offense) need to stop arguing, using the tiniest facts to try and disprove something that is so unanimously agreed upon by scientists worldwide. If you don't believe in science, then that is a whole different matter, but if you do, I cannot fathom why you don't understand this. If we don't have a habitable world to live and be healthy on, how can we solve all our other problems?
Lee001

Con

Okay first off, you keep saying climate change is real. IT IS! the climate changes constantly according to the season. We are arguing that that GLOBAL WARMING isn't real. All you are doing is rebutting my arguments saying that they are not caused by humans, so in saying, your saying I'm correct. You have made no arguments suggesting that humans cause global warming, because there is none. All you have said is that most Scientist agree with global warming and that they believe that humans are a main cause of it, but yet where is the evidence. I can't find anything to rebut so let me make more arguments.

Some of the cause is in the arctic; the polar ice caps are melting faster than it can be evaporated .This process may be reversed in 10-20 years. Humans are only responsible for less than 3 % of all the carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere.

Geologists Nicholas Chackleton and Neil Opdyke both from Cambridge University wrote in a quaternary research journal. Estimating the average world temperature has been slowly increasing over the last one million years, long before the human industries started releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together.
The sun actually has little to do with actually heating the atmosphere with its high frequency radiation. Something as hot as the sun can"t give off low frequency radiation called infrared. Instead, the sun"s rays heats the Earth"s surface, this weakens the radiation to infrared. From there it moves in to the earth"s atmosphere by any means necessary (Conduction, convection, evaporation). Then the inferred radiation is absorbed by the CO2.
Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times.

The earth has been here for more than 4 billion years. The human industry has only been around for around 200 years. The earth has been warming since the dinosaur ages. Without a doubt, humans have caused minimal changes to our environment as it is already warming itself. Nature is sending Carbon dioxide in to out atmosphere by natural disasters. For example, the eruption of Mt. St Helens has sent more carbon dioxide in to the atmosphere than humans have for over decades. In fact, that eruption actually caused global cooling of 1 degree.

According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth"s temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally.

This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It"s not our fault we breathe, it"s completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere.
Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year"s average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would have been destroyed long ago.
So how could humans cause global warming if global warming was around before humans even existed?

Sources:
http://scienceray.com...
Debate Round No. 2
hopkinst

Pro

I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time.

I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over.

Thank you for debating!
Lee001

Con

I'm stubborn?
Well thanks :)
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
No it dosen't, it means your using evidence to support your claim, something you should have done! dont be all but hurt because your losing.

Jaspers, thanks for calling me a pr*ck, im honored;)
Posted by hopkinst 1 year ago
hopkinst
Just copying and pasting is lame. It means you can't come up with your own argument, so you just use someone else's. Plus you didn't even use quotation marks.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
@Jasperps you win, great argument.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Ah Hannah, you've met our hateful friend have you?
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
Well well....look who it is, we meet again.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
debatefox. 7 points to Pro. Reason for removal: failure to explain every single point.

Reasons for voting decision: better everything
====================================================================

-bluesteel (voting mod)
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
The heck?? I gave the authors credit.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
@hoPkinst so quoting the sources that you used is plagiarism?...
Posted by hopkinst 1 year ago
hopkinst
I would just like to point out how Con copied and pasted her second argument from the sourced website. This is not debating, this is plagiarism.
Posted by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
This was a waste of time!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
hopkinstLee001Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides assert stats, presenting all manner of evidence that I cannot verify and that barely gets any analysis. In fact, Con's opening round is literally just a series of arguments shot out in shotgun format with no support. Pro's argument apparently has a lot of supporting information that he never provides, and Con's R2 only has once link to a page that does nothing to bolster his argument. Both sides are making many of the good arguments out there, but neither side is providing the warrants or support to make them believable. And I'm not even sure what the burdens are in this debate because I don't know the threshold necessary for "caused by humans". Does all of climate change have to be caused by humans? Most? Some? If it's the last, then Pro fulfilled his burden. If it's the first, he didn't. If it's the middle... Anyway, uncertainty reigns in this debate, and neither side is making it particularly easy. I give Con conduct because of Pro's final round, but that's all I can do.
Vote Placed by connorjfield 1 year ago
connorjfield
hopkinstLee001Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully demonstrates the point that the climate is constantly changing and that human impact on it is minimal at best. Pro seems to give up at the end.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
hopkinstLee001Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: THIS IS NOT A VOTE BOMB! Conduct to Con, by no way is calling Con stubbon, because she is defending her beliefs in anyway is proper . conduct. I would view that as a slap to the face and unproffessional. Spelling and Grammar goes to Con as well as I've seen many of Pro's grammatical errors, but both sides were about equal in terms of spelling, but due to several grammatical errors in Round 3 I have no choice, but to give Con this point. For arguments this became an interesting case. You see the overall deciding factor that despite both sides having giving valid points was that Con backed up her points with sources and creditable people in order to help her case. Like in Round 2 when she brought up the research from Cambridge University to help emphasize her point. Because of this I give sources to Con concidering that she's the only one to use sources on the debate. With that all points are to be awarded to Con and she wins the debate.