The Instigator
Atheist-Independent
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
easleycpa
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Global Warming Exists (2)

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...
Atheist-Independent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 65411
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Atheist-Independent

Pro

This debate is about global warming, and whether or not is a real phenomenon. I will take the Pro side of the premise that global warming is real and that it is a result of human beings.

Anybody can accept this debate, on the condition that the first round is for acceptance only.

Good luck!
easleycpa

Con

Hello and good luck.

My assertion is that there is no widely accepted theorem or set of theorems that are widely acknowledged to infer a direct connection between Global Warming and Anthropologic means. I cannot produce proof of something that does not exist so I will infer from its negative.

If there was one widely acknowledged theorem establishing such a connection do you not think it strange we do not all know the name of the scientist or institute supporting the claimed 97% agreement? I mean what is it they all agree on?

I would agree that the PPM of CO2 has gone up and even if to IPCC estimates of 280 PPM in the mid 1700s then from that to 400 PPM is a 40% increase applied to a total of 3% of atmospheric CO2 today or a change of 1.2% change in CO2 which impact would be partially offset by the reduction in another greenhouse gas, water which represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses referring to the dynamic affects that slows heat dispersion from the earth. The fear in 1827 when the theory was first proposed might have been a circular effect like in an actual closed greenhouse but any valid theory at what proportion this occurs does not exist. They are unproven hypothesis at best.

Such an occurrence seems unlikely in part because Oxygen and CO@ acts very different than Methane which was the cause of the clouds on Venus spawning the Greenhouse theory for earth. CO2 is heavier than air and falls naturally to the ground. But no one knows the interaction of all these factors in the carbon cycle. Of all the estimated carbon produced in the World or about 34 gigatonnes at 2014 estimates only about 6 to 11 gigatonnes annually increases in our atmosphere as measured by the PPM. The annual increase has been surprisingly consistent despite a heavy buildup in annual anthropologic CO2. Here is that graph. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...

You will notice that there has been a constant slope going back much further yet all the estimates say we are producing far more CO2 over that period that would lead one to believe the CO2 PPM graph should be rising at a climbing rate but it is not it remains contributing about the same change every year which converts to somewhere in the range of 8 to 10 gigatonnes of CO2 every year. Why is it not rising if we are producing more?

Now my honorable opponent when you study this phenomenon AGW do you attempt to read between the lines to see what they DON'T say? Let me tell you something I am an auditor and I assure you people can not tell you more than what they tell you. So back to your learning of this do you remember reading about the degree of error in their calculations or the limitations of their measurement tools? Are you aware, for instance of the number and approximate locations of all the monitoring buoy on earth? And how are you to evaluate if these are sufficient to the degree scientists would accept as valid? In my research into this matter I found less than I would have thought. To give a sense of the limitations these scientists have in making these predications consider the recent loss of a passenger airliner? I mean its not like losing a set of keys is it and I think the whole world has been dismayed by that tragic event at the limitations of state of the art science. But it can in some cases be appropriate to simply believe the scientists but in this argument I intend to demolish this blind belief you have not in scientists but in greed.

So I propose to you to resolve this complex issue let us opt for reason and logic and arrive at a conclusion we both agree with rather than one only one? Because the complexity is so massive perhaps we can start with widely accepted fact and move to less accepted. For example I agree with the estimated change in CO2 levels from 1750 to today of 280 to 400. I find much earlier estimates of CO2 levels to be less credible for two reasons, 1 the error rate inherent in such estimates and 2 the inferences we can draw from such levels is highly questionable unless a massive composite of all other factors such as sun spots was also known such I find it questionable.

I say we not relay on what 97% of scientists say I say we figure this out ourselves.

Thanks,

Steve
Debate Round No. 1
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Introduction
Thanks Steve for your arguments. Technically the first round was solely for acceptance, but we'll make do with it. I am commiting a grievous sin of my own by copying my argument from a different debate so I suppose we're even.

For my argument I would first off like to define a few terms as it is likely that they will be used several times by both debaters.

Global warming: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

Greenhouse effect: the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2): a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration.

Fossil Fuels: a natural fuel such as coal or gas, formed in the geological past from the remains of living organisms.

With the definitions aside, let the debating begin!

How does the greenhouse effect work?
Before I begin defending the premise defined in the first round, I would like to clarify how the process called the greenhouse effect works. This is essential to the topic of global warming, as the greenhouse effect is the process which warms the planet, especially during the nigh time. When sunlight reaches the earths atmosphere it changes into thermal radiation. Most of this thermal radiation is reflected off back into space due to the earth's atmosphere, however some manages to enter the planet. Once it reaches the atmosphere, it comes down to the surface, still as light, and is converted into energy through the process of photosynthesis. Eventually this energy is transferred from the plant to a primary or secondary consumer when the plant/producer is eaten by the consumer. Due to a concept called the 10% rule, almost all of the energy (90%) is lost during the transfer from producer to consumer and is radiated back into the atmosphere as heat [1]. Some of this heat manages to leave the atmosphere and goes off to space where it becomes essentially useless. A small percent of the heat, however, is trapped by the greenhouse gases (such as CO2, CH4, N2O, etc) and is kept in the atmosphere [2]. This is important because during the nigh time when the sun is not providing heat, the heat preserved by the greenhouse gases keep the planets surface warm [3].

This generally should be considered a good thing, however in this case there can be to much of a good thing. Due to the fact that there is now an abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide, too much heat is being trapped in the atmosphere and as a result global temperatures have risen. I will attempt to prove that the reason for this abundance of greenhouse gases and as a result increased global temperatures is a result of human actions, and it is not a "natural" occurrence.

Graph A shows the basic process of the greenhouse effect.

Graph A:


Argument structure
My argument will follow this basic format:

P1) The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human actions.
P2) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperatures.
P3) Therefore human beings are responsible for global warming.

P1) The increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human actions.
This is not a very difficult subject to defend and consequently it is not a very controversial subject, therefore I will be brief. Since the industrial revolution in the mid 1800's more and more carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere. Graph B shows the rapid increase in carbon emmisions starting in 1850.

Graph B:
The reason for this is obvious, due to rapid increasing of industry and technology, burning of fossil fuels has become more and more frequent. Due to the fact that the burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is also obvious that the increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a result of human activity.

P2) Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes an increase in global temperatures.
This is a much more controversial subject, and therefore I will spend the majority of my argument in this section.

Given that the greenhouse effect states that greenhouse gases trap heat, and re radiate it in all directions, as shown in Graph A, it would be easy to make the assumption that if there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there would be less long wave radiation (the type of heat that CO2 absorbs) being emitted into space and more infrared radiation being emitted back to the earth. This, as a result, would heat up the world and cause global warming. To prove this hypothesis, NASA launched the IRIS satellite in 1970 to record the amount of long wave radiation being emitted into space over a 26 year period [4]. What they found supported the hypothesis that less long wave radiation was being emitted into space and as result their was more infrared being contained in the earth. Graph C displays the results of the experiment.

Graph C:


This graph is an infrared spectrum and it shows the frequencies of infrared light (800 to 1600 cm-1). The graph has multiple greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and CH4) and based on their position on the graph, it determines the frequency of infrared light that they absorb. For example CO2 is at the far end of the spectrum because it absorbs lower frequency light than CH4 (methane), which is at the far end of the spectrum. The graph shows the difference of the amount of infrared radiation that is being absorbed by the various greenhouse gases between 1970 and 1996. Due to the fact that there is a greater variation in both CO2 and CH4 it shows that there is more radiation being absorbed by those two gases. In simpler terms, this shows that there is more heat being trapped by carbon dioxide and methane then there used to in the past, and therefore as a result global warming is a result of the carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. If these gases are the cause of global warming than it can also be determined that human beings are the cause of global warming because they are the ones that are emitting the CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere.

Moving on to the next graph, Graph D is representing the amount of infrared radiation at the earth's surface.

Graph D:


This graph is somewhat less complex than Graph C (thankfully). What it is representing is once again the infrared radiation spectrum (600-1800 cm-1) and the greenhouse gases that trap the radiation at certain spectrums. CO2 is found and approximately 800 cm-1 and consequently there is a much higher amount of infrared radiation at 800 cm-1 at the earths surface than there is of any other wave frequency. What this means is that carbon dioxide is responsible for the majority of the heat being contained in the earth. By extension, this means that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and that it is once again human beings fault due to the fact that we are the ones emitting the CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now moving on to the final graph. Graph E is showing both the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and also the global temperatures.

Graph E:



What Graph E is conveying is that there is a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere currently, much higher than there has ever been in the past. Now there are three important things to note in this graph. One is that throughout the course of history, whenever global temperatures increased, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere had increased as well. This allows us to reach the conclusion that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher temperatures will be. The second thing to note is that in none of the historical situations did global temperatures increase at the exact same time that the carbon dioxide levels. In every situation the temperatures took several years to rise following an increase in carbon dioxide levels. This is important because it shows global warming skeptics, like my opponent, that global temperatures will not increase right away. This is why temperatures have not increased so rapidly yet, however given the trend of this graph they are certain to increase in the near future. The final thing to note is the huge amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today. In no situation in history has their been such a high amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the only explanation for why this is is human activity. Global warming skeptics claim that we cannot know that it is human being fault for global warming, however this chart shows the contrary.

P3) Therefore humans are responsible for global warming
I have proved that carbon dioxide is the primary reason for why their has been increases in global temperatures as of late. This negates skeptics major arguments about why global warming is not human beings fault because it is clear that carbon dioxide emittions are due to human beings, and therefore it can be concluded that human beings are the cause of global warming.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......

[2] http://www.epa.gov......

[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu......

[4] http://www.skepticalscience.com......



easleycpa

Con

You clearly have not established any of your assertions and here is why.

Your entire argument is to show a "cumulative" graph of CO2 emissions that show an alarming increase but consider the cumulative effect of such a graph?

If I were to produce 1 ton of CO2 per day and you were to graph that over time then it would be a flat line at the X axis of 1. However if we make a "cumulative graph then the graph line would slope up from 1 to 365 but what does that mean? By itself nothing as you have not established a "correlation" between your cumulative graph and the resulting build up of CO2. If you follow the link I posted above you will see this line does not look like the one you post but this does not mean they are not correlated. Rather what is needed is a statistical coefficient of correlation along with an analysis of the possible and probable associations between like elements from two sources.

So you really have established nothing at all. There are a myriad of explanations between estimated CO2 emissions you chart and the PPM as measured by NASA which is about 400 PPM and has held steady there for about 2 years now.

Without the coefficient of correlation established and elimination of alternative explanations your so called proof is anything but. Again, I am back to the difficult task of attempting to prove a negative as I contend such correlation does not exist in a numerical value insuring a correlation between Human Emissions and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. You cannot produce it.

Your argument for the global warming is likewise not a logical proof as is immediately absent in your argument is the possible offsetting aspects of the thermo dynamic analysis you post in a completely biased manner. You delve into graphs and charts when you clearly do not have the scientific training or understanding of the aspects of how these things you mention interact with each other. Models of climate change take 100s of thousands of man hours to develop and must be run on super computers yet here you are summarizing the entirety of all that in a few paragraphs then declaring it a proof. By that assumption there is no need to learn more and there is no need to debate this issue further as all we need do is get the proof from you. I admire your attempt to delve into such things but I think you should get to school and pay particular attention to your geometry studies as you are clearly unfamiliar with the constituents of a proof.

You then conclude based on two fallacies which of course is a fallacy.

What is the coefficient of correlation and how does it compare to the coefficient of correlation with Sun spot cycles which I would think you would agree is the other significant "forcing" on global temperatures and climate change?

I do not offer them here as you will simply ignore them or discount them by a mere read as you have already concluded on these things not based on your research but rather on the research of others so rather than graphs produced by others along with their related hypothesis without any reference to authoritative credentials you might just as well do as most Chicken Little's do and commit the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority by quoting the rumor that 97% of scientists agree on something although we have no specifics. You offer nothing here but ambiguous and incorrect inference based on unsubstantiated data to reach a conclusion you have already made.

You rely on the arguments of others and none of your own so next time you feel compelled to recite someone else's argument how about you just give me their email and I will debate them?

I reassert there is no basis for the correlation between human activity and observed CO2 increases in PPM in earth's atmosphere...NONE!!
Debate Round No. 2
Atheist-Independent

Pro

Rebuttal
I am going to keep this rebuttal as short as possible as I am running out of time.


My opponent claims that since there is no direct set of theorems, therefore we should not believe in global warming. I acknowledge this, however if we are to base a hypothesis based on our current understanding of both the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect, it is logical to presume that global warming both exists and that it is a result of human actions.

The greenhouse effect states that with the increase of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the warmer the earth will get. Therefore it can be presumed that since there has been a great increase in carbon dioxide, as a result of human influences, the earth will get warmer. If this is an unsatisfactory theorem to you, my prestigious opponent, than I don't know what else is.

My opponent then goes on to state that carbon dioxide naturally falls back down to the ground and therefore should not be able to cause increased temperatures. This is an incorrect statement. It is true that carbon dioxide is denser than oxygen. Within the atmosphere the relative densities of hydrogen :nitrogen: oxygen: air::carbon dioxide are approximately 1 : 7 : 8 : 7.2 : 22 [1]. The reason why it stays up in the atmosphere is a matter of concentrations. In the atmosphere there is enough oxygen moving around to prevent any the carbon dioxide from clumping together and getting too dense so that it falls back to the ground [2].

Adamantly my opponent claims that the global temperatures are not climbing nearly fast enough to suggest that any abnormality is occurring. First off, the graphs that you are citing simply do not have enough time on them. If we look at any graph that dates back to at least 1880, we can see that the temperatures are increasing quite rapidly. For example, look at Graph F.

Graph F:

We simply cannot deny that that is an increase. The speed of the increase, however, is the question at hand. In a study performed by Climatologist Michael Mann he displayed that the earth was cooling over the past 10,000 years until this century began. The spike shown in Graph G is certainly disturbing, and it cannot be denied that it is unlikely that this is at all a natural occurrence.

Graph G:


A new study, similar to the one by Mann revealed that the rate at which the world is heating up is faster than it has been in the past 11,300 years [3]. The abstract for the paper published about the study will probably be a better way to explain the study than any attempt of mine, so here it is:

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios" [4].

I believe that this sufficiently rebuts my opponents argument that the world is not warming as fast as it should. Putting the global temperatures in a tiny scope such as back just 20 years ago is simply not a way to determine the speed of the increased temperatures.


I would like to conclude that global warming must be a real phenomenon as there is countless evidence to support that temperatures have increased in recent years. However, it must not be a natural occurrence due to the rapidity of the temperature change as nothing of the sort has ever in earth's history (that we know of). Since we have conclusive evidence (as shown in graph B) that carbon dioxide levels, the primary pollutant, have increased directly when the Industrial Revolution started. Therefore it can be assumed that global warming is real and that it is a result of human activities. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Sources

[1] http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.com...

[2] http://www.reddit.com...

[3]
http://www.slate.com...

[4] http://www.sciencemag.org...
easleycpa

Con

I'm going to take this piece by piece as my opponent expresses an inability to infer from universals, which is ok he is young and will become familiar with universals at some stage in his life.

So, pedagogically I respond in caps not to be in a loud voice but to only distinguish my voice in this limited text forum.

Rebuttal
I am going to keep this rebuttal as short as possible as I am running out of time.

YOU AND I HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF "SHORT."

My opponent claims that since there is no direct set of theorems, therefore we should not believe in global warming. I acknowledge this, however if we are to base a hypothesis based on our current understanding of both the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect, it is logical to presume that global warming both exists and that it is a result of human actions.

I MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION I MERELY ASSERTED A CORRELATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS OF SKEPTICM. THIS IS SUPPORT BY NOAA HERE

"One interesting aspect of solar cycles is that the sun went through a period of near zero sunspot activity from about 1645 to 1715. This period of sunspot minima is called the Maunder Minimum. The "Little Ice Age" occurred over parts of Earth during the Maunder Minimum. So how much does the solar output affect Earth's climate? There is debate within the scientific community how much solar activity can, or does affect Earth's climate. There is research which shows evidence that Earth's climate is sensitive to very weak changes in the Sun's energy output over time frames of 10s and 100s of years. Times of maximum sunspot activity are associated with a very slight increase in the energy output from the sun. Ultraviolet radiation increases dramatically during high sunspot activity, which can have a large effect on the Earth's atmosphere. The converse is true during minimum sunspot activity. But trying to filter the influence of the Sun's energy output and its effect on our climate with the "noise" created by a complex interaction between our atmosphere, land and oceans can be difficult. For example, there is research which shows that the Maunder Minimum not only occurred during a time with a decided lack of sunspot activity, but also coincided with a multi-decade episode of large volcanic eruptions. Large volcanic eruptions are known to hinder incoming solar radiation. Finally, there is also evidence that some of the major ice ages Earth has experienced were caused by Earth being deviated from its average 23.5 degree tilt on its axis. Indeed Earth has tilted anywhere from near 22 degrees to 24.5 degrees on its axis. But overall when examining Earth on a global scale, and over long periods of time, it is certain that the solar energy output does have an affect on Earth's climate. However there will always be a question to the degree of affect due to terrestrial and oceanic interactions on Earth. "

http://www.crh.noaa.gov...

IN OTHER WORDS IF THEY CANNOT "TEASE" OUT THE IMPACT OF THE SUN THEREFORE THEY CANNOT "TEASE" OUT THE IMPACT OF CO2 ON CLIMATE.

ADDITIONALLY PLEASE TAKE NOTE NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ARE PROPER SOURCES SUCH AS TO BE FOUND IN CREDENTIALED SOURCES SUCH AS I USE SUCH AS NASA AND NOAA. RATHER YOU USE THE ENGINEERED REMENT OF THE RAW DATA AFTER SUBJECTED TO IDEOLOGY. I ASERT YOU HAVE GIVEN A SINGLE AUTHORATATIVE SOURCE IN THIS DEBATE AT ALL.

YOU CONCLUDE FROM MERELY STATING "OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING" THIS IS YOUR SINGLE PREMISE FROM WHICH YOU CONCLUDE "LOGICALL" THAT BOTH GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS AND IT IS CAUSED BY PEOPLE. THIS IS TRULEY REMARKABLE TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT EVEN IMAGINE SUCH A THING CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM A SINGLE PREMISE AND AN INCORRECT ONE. YOU ESSETNAILLY SAID "EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS TRUE SO THIS IS TRUE."

I AM TRUELY HORRIFIED AS I IMAGINE THE PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED SUCH DISTORTED THINKING. YOU MERELY SUPPORT YOUR OPINION WITH OPINION HOLDING THIS RELIANCE ON AMBIQUOUS AND UNNAMED AUTHORATIES WILL WIN THE DAY FOR YOU.

NO, ALL YOUR PREMISES AND CONCLUSIONS ARE SO TWISTED AND ABSENT I DO NOT THINK I CAN REPAIR THEM AND WILL LEAVE THEM AS IS CONFUSING AND CONVOLUTED.

The greenhouse effect states that with the increase of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the warmer the earth will get. Therefore it can be presumed that since there has been a great increase in carbon dioxide, as a result of human influences, the earth will get warmer. If this is an unsatisfactory theorem to you, my prestigious opponent, than I don't know what else is.

"THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT" DOES SO STATE BUT I CANNOT FIND WHERE THIS IS EVEN CALLED A FORMALIZED THEORY THEREFORE BY DEFAULT BEING ONLY A HYPOTEHSIS. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT HYPOTHESIS FIRST FORMULATED IN 1827 HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN AND ACTUALLY MORE RESEARCH POINTS TO DISCREDITING IT AS UNLIKELY ON EARTH BECAUSE WE HAVE CONTERVAILING FACTORS SUCH AS PLANTS ABSORBING CO2 AND ALSO BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A METHANE ATMOSTPHERE AND THESE TWO PRIMARY ELEMENTS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT POPERTIES IN TERMS OF ADJUSTING THEMSELVES OR EVEN BLOWING OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE OFF INTO SPACE. HERE IS YOUR SO CALLED "THEORY" THAT I BELIEVE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A THEORY IN THE 1820S BUT TODAY IS JUST A HYPOTHESIS.

FROM WIKIPEDIA
Discovery of the greenhouse effect[edit]

In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation. He examined various possible sources of the additional observed heat in articles published in 1824[12] and 1827.[13] While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier's consideration of the possibility that the Earth's atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect.

SO THIS THEORY LANGUSJHED ON THE SHELVES FOR OVER 150 YEARS WHEN ALL GORE DUSTED IT OFF AND GOT THIS INSANITY ROLLING BY THE SAME MISTRUTHS AND INCOMPLETE DATA MY OPPONENT REFERS TO, I WONDER IF HE HAS SEEN THAT FILM AND BELIEVES IT WHOLEHEARTEDLY?

THE WAY YOU PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS IS NOT SCIENCE OR LOGIC, YOU MERELY LINE UP POLEMIC ARGUMENTS ALL ON ONE SIDE AND CHECK THEM OFF LIKE YOU HAVE FORUMATED A PROOF WHEN YOU CLEARLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT A PROOF EVEN IS. YOU EXHIBIT A NAIVE PERSPECTIVE ON SCIENCE AND A CONSIDERATION OF REASON AND LOGIC CONMENSUATTE WITH YOUR TENDER YEARS SO I DO NOT HOLD YOU AT FAULT, RATHER I HOLD YOUR TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTORS AT FALT FOR NOT TEACHING YOU OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC INQUERY. THEY SHOULD BE DRUG INTO THE PUBLI SQUARE AND PUT IN THE STOCKS AND BE PUBLICALLY HUMILIATED FOR SUCH CRIMINAL NEGLECT OF THEIR PROFESSION.

CONCLUDE

THERE IS NO CAUSUAL LINK AND MY OPPONENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ONE. I CONFESS PROVING ONE DOES NOT EXIST IS THE FAR MORE DIFFICULT TASK SO MY PROOF RESTS ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE ARGUMENTS MY OPPONENT HAS PUT FORWARD. DO NOT VOTE HERE BASED ON THE STRENGTH OF MY ARGUMENT BUT AT THE WEAKNESS OF HIS NOT BENG ABLE TO ESTABLISH MORE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THIS THING HE CLAIMS HAS BEEN SETTLED IN THAT IS BETWEEN ANTHROPOLOGIC MEANS AND GLOBAL WARMING. WHETHER THE GLOBE IS WARMING IS A FUNCTION OF MEASUREMENT AND I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO SAY WHETHER IT IS OR NOT BUT NEITHER CAN MY OPPONENT MAKE A SATISFACTORY CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND CLIMATE CHANGE BEYONG IMAGES OF LINES CURVING THIS WAY AND THAT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF NUMERICAL CORRELATION.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by easleycpa 2 years ago
easleycpa
I don't know what you are talking about?
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Never mind then...
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Steve, do you mind posting "No round as agreed" in the final round? That way we would both get an equal amount of debate time.
Posted by easleycpa 2 years ago
easleycpa
DMDemo you do use the current convention for the term generally related to AGW and that is Climate Change but that is not the term of the challenge. The term used here is Global Warming so that is a different thing.

But let me ask you? What is the engine of Climate Change that you prefer to refer to it as? Is it something other than Anthropologic Global Warming or AGW? I like to be accurate about these things but please take the time to respond and correct my understanding. Currently it is my understanding that the chief cause of Climate Change from anthropologic means is due to an increase in worldwide average temperatures that generates sufficient energy to drive climate to more severe occurrences that is now the popular scientific explanation of this dynamic cycle.

So if not synonymous with each other these terms appear certainly to be connected by cause and effect else please do respond and correct my understanding?

Thanks,

Steve
Posted by DMDemo 2 years ago
DMDemo
As a note, the term "Global warming" is misleading. "Climate Change" or even "Global climate change" is more accurate.
Posted by easleycpa 2 years ago
easleycpa
The appeal of AGW is an emotional one not a rational one.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What gets me is the commies in our society tried to shut us down because they said that our use of energy would bring on another ice age. Then it started to warm up and then they said global warming. Now it is cooling down again and they say " climate change". Which is undefined." green house gases cannot have opposite effects. Nature is not as goofy as liberals.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I agree. Every morning that great big furnace in the sky turns on the heat.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Atheist-IndependenteasleycpaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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: con's ALL CAPS killed my eyes, so spelling and grammar to pro. Arg's to pro too because I feel like con didn't manage to refute pro's experiment that showed global warming true.