The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
libertyforall
Con (against)
Winning
66 Points

Global Warming exists and mankind is responsible for it.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,595 times Debate No: 2266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (30)

 

blond_guy

Pro

I hope there are takers, I've seen some members that do not believe in the global warming theory so I'd like to make it clear.

1)Global Warming exists. If you are not ok with that statement please say so.

2)Humans are the ones responsible for it. There is plenty of evidence that shows humans emit large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. There hasn't been so much greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sine 650,000 years ago.

3) Many find it natural that the earth will cool back down like it has before. However, the earth has never been so hot! Evidence shows many factors that are making it even hotter and nothing shows it will get colder
libertyforall

Con

I am still waiting for science to find the truth about global warming but for the sake of debate, I will take you on.

Man's addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant.

Of the two main reasons, the first is that nature does a far bigger job in the carbon-dioxide supply rate, and the second is that carbon dioxide is secondary to water as a so-called greenhouse gas. So shouldn't we first try to control water? And behind that again is the alternative warming concept, most generally known as the Arctic Ocean Model, which is considered by many to be the real driver for the temperature oscillations and has been for the last million years or so.

So, is the carbon dioxide driving the temperature, as so many people seem to believe? Or, is the temperature driving the carbon dioxide? If it's the latter, then what's the problem with carbondioxide emissions?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea.

And from man? That's about 5 or 6 or possibly 7 gigatons per year, which is about the size of the noise in the nature data and is essentially trivial by comparison.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

First of all, let me say that your arguments are based on theories that can't be proved.

"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change nature's rate of carbon supply to the atmosphere (carried as carbon dioxide) and back out again is about 150 gigatons per year. About 60 gigatons per year come from and go back to vegetation, and 90 gigatons per year are from and to the sea."--------------------------------> Find me the evidence STRAIGHT FROM THE I.P.C.C. and not from some youtube video please.

Second of all, even if what you claim is true, that nature produces more CO2 than mankind, that does not disprove the fact that mankind still emits several gigatons into the atmosphere and they can do something to reduce that amount.
libertyforall

Con

Your "14 year oldnesas" is showing my friend. I do not need to prove anything, nor do I have anythign to prove. The whole point of a debate is that the people who watch (in our case read) get to decide who is right, it is up to you to disprove me and it is up to the readers who they want to believe. No back to the topic.

Since you didn't add to anything, I will just simply continue.

Of the two gases in the atmosphere that do most of the warming, carbon dioxide, as noted, is secondary. Water is responsible for roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the absorption and re-radiation, and carbon dioxide is responsible for (most of) the balance of 15 percent to 20 percent. The radiation, by the way, isn't "trapped." It is coming and going: It's known as Radiative Exchange (governed by what is known as the Schuster-Schwartzchild or S-S Integral Equation of Radiative Transfer). But, next, when it comes to atmospheric heating, we need the heat anyway. If the atmosphere wasn't warmed, the Earth would be too cold to live on, and we wouldn't be here.

What has the correlation between rising temperature and rising carbon dioxide got to do with anything? In fact, quite a lot. First, it is real. Second, if we reverse the drivers as suggested, we then see that it is most probably the rising temperature that is driving up the carbon dioxide, not the other way around. The quantity of carbon dioxide that water — in the sea or lakes or rivers and so on — can absorb will drop as the temperature rises.

You can run the numbers using the Absorption Equilibrium Constant for carbon dioxide in water (this is standard physical chemistry). And if the water can't hold it, it goes into the atmosphere, and there you have a possible, or most probable, answer to most, or all, that is going on with the current rise in carbon dioxide.

These numbers have been around for decades. In the last million years, the world has been subject to a temperature cycle with a 100,000-year period (the Arctic Ocean Model again), and we are currently in the final rise of the latest interglacial period.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

I'll agree that I don't know about conspiracy theories as much as you do.
But you still haven't refuted the fact that humans do emit a lot of CO2 and that they can do something to lower it.

"If the atmosphere wasn't warmed, the Earth would be too cold to live on, and we wouldn't be here. "

We lived here through more than one Ice Age!!! The earth has never been this hot and lands will start to disappear very soon.

"Your "14 year oldnesas" is showing my friend."

Use personal attacks all you want. They work in debates like these, people listen to opinions that "sound good" even though are not backed up by evidence. So go ahead. But the inconvenient truth is that it won't make you right, and humans ARE causing Global Warming and we'll just need New York City to disappear for you Ron Paul junkies to realize we need to stop!
libertyforall

Con

We'll let the voters decide who was the best debater. I would just like to restate that I took this on for the sake of debate. I don't have a position on global warming yet.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gryphion 5 years ago
gryphion
nyc2sea: The glaciers are not melting, temperatures are not going up, and there is no hole in the ozone layer. AS Jesusrules said, It's a scam. Believe me, I am an expert.
Posted by Jesusrules 7 years ago
Jesusrules
Global warming is bad science. First of all humans contribute to hardly any of the CO2 in the air. Think about how many millions of animals, billions of dying plants, quadrillions of bacteria, all releasing CO2 in the air. Also any volcano releases more greenhouse gases than humans have put in the air since the invention of the car.

Global warming is also a cycle. How did we leave the ice age WITHOUT humans creating tons of co2. How did we leave the little iceage? How did we have the warm period a couple hundred years ago?

And just because polar bears are dying doesn't mean it has happening. And a commercial showed this to us. Want to know what it is? A scam. They are trying to get your money by making you feel bad about polar bears. Really they are making polar bears look stupid, which they aren't. They can move with the ice. They don't sit there until the ice melts and they drown.

Global warming doesn't make much sense in the first place. How is .03% of the atmosphere going to warm us up? Most of it is in the ozone too, and only 30% of light is reflected on to it, and it only traps so much because of how thin it is. And humans barely make any of the co2. It is not a good cause for global warming. Lastly, tempature graphs from balloons and other aircraft show the tempature droping, not rising. Land stations are inaccurate. They are placed in cities, which the concrete starts a warm microclimate. Global warming just does not exist.
Posted by nyc2sea 7 years ago
nyc2sea
Global warming does exist. If it doesn't exist, then why are temperatures rising and why are glaciers melting? Global warming is caused by pollutants getting caught in the ozone layer. These pollutants then harm the ozone layer and cause it to become thinner. There are holes in the ozone layer right now from the pollutants that have risen up into it. People are dying from heat waves because of the sudden temperature changes. How can you say global warming is not real when these things are happening? There are so many different causes of global warming and there are so many things people can do to reduce global warming but people are being ignorant and saying that global warming is a non-existent myth when it is occurring right before their eyes.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
I find this funny today, because yesterday I heard on the news that the Farmers Almanac is saying that for the next 10-15 years we will be in for some of the coolest weather on record. So there goes the Warming theory the media has left this one alone with the exception of a few. I know a lot of people put their entire farming future in what the Almanac says and believe or not, it generally bares out in then end. I have found that some of the information put out by the FA is pretty right on and don't understand why weather people don't consult it more frequently. I believe that if there was nothing to it, then why has been around so long and why do some many farmers believe in what it has to say?
Posted by MoonDragon613 9 years ago
MoonDragon613
The most significant cause of death in the United States is heart disease. Cancer is secondary to heart disease in killing Americans. Thus in order to address the rate of death in America (of course assuming that it is something that needs to be addressed), since Cancer is secondary, it is unimportant. Let's just worry about heart disease.

(The summation of Con's arguments which I must admit was spun very nicely, especially since Pro did not deliver a sarcastic summation which would have put it in perspective)
Posted by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
also forgot to add that anyone who says they are a democrat and has "Libertarian" on there profile for "spectrum" does not understand polotics, and should have no place in my party, so again, dont let it bother you
Posted by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
it a shame blond guy.....liberty is someone who doesn't like to debate about facts...dont let him bother you, its like trynig to tell someone the sky is blue and why when they believe its purple, and there is no debate about it.
Posted by libertyforall 9 years ago
libertyforall
"I could debate and argue for years with a Ron Paul supporter. But the thing is, unlike most of the gullible youth, I will never be convinced about Global Warming." - Blond_Guy HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I wish pro would have more fully addressed the fact that the opportunity cost of reducing carbon emissions vs staying the same as we are is obvious- staying the same as we are would bring us great benefits of the modern world- reducing carbon emissions by a small amount would do nothing but give us economic penalties, reducing them enough for any real effect (even in theory) would cause the death of billions of people- moving us back into the dark ages. All this to curb minor warming that there is no serious evidence (Just wild speculation) of causing any serious detrimental to humans.
Posted by rojogato19 9 years ago
rojogato19
So on the comment board here is how our exchange went:

You
"There hasn't been so much greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere sine 650,000 years ago."

Me
"so if the CO2 levels were as high then as they are now...then you CANNOT say with any certainty that we are the cause now"

You
"you're wrong! CO2 levels were NOT as high and humans ARE the cause."

!?!You just contradicted yourself. You say CO2 levels havnt been as high as they are now sinces 650,000yrs ago, THEN you say that they were NOT as high then. You are making two seperate and contradictory arguments to support your case, YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by bulldog1419 7 years ago
bulldog1419
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by out_n_proud_HINDU 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RonPaul08 9 years ago
RonPaul08
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MyMeteora81 9 years ago
MyMeteora81
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
blond_guylibertyforallTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30