The Instigator
Andromeda_Z
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Global Warming is Entirely 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,680 times Debate No: 15134
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Andromeda_Z

Con

My argument is that, while global warming may have been intensified by human influence (CO2 emissions, methane emissions, etc.), it is also a product of the Earth itself and this should be considered when reporting on the drastic effects of global warming. The ice caps will melt and water levels will rise. These are leftovers from the most recent ice age, the Quaternary glaciation (1), and should be expected to melt as we move toward the Holocene epoch (2). Rainforests and deserts will change, but this has happened before. Global warming, while real, is not entirely a result of our actions.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
dinokiller

Pro

First, i thank my opponent for this debate, may the best win.

Now i've come up with multiple reasons why humans are actually the cause of global warming.
But lets refute yours first.

"My argument is that, while global warming may have been intensified by human influence (CO2 emissions, methane emissions, etc.), it is also a product of the Earth itself and this should be considered when reporting on the drastic effects of global warming."

Cant really refute this one, this one is true. If CO2 wasnt there, the atmosphere would be so thin, that we all would be roasted and life on earth would be impossible. But this argument says nothing about humans not causing the global warming. Aside from humans, the CO2 emission alone from nature doesnt cause global warming.

"The ice caps will melt and water levels will rise. These are leftovers from the most recent ice age, the Quaternary glaciation (1), and should be expected to melt as we move toward the Holocene epoch (2). Rainforests and deserts will change, but this has happened before. Global warming, while real, is not entirely a result of our actions."

Uhm, we wont be happy if the ice age comes again >.<
But ice ages wont just come because it wants to, there was always a cause. (meteorite strikes, etc.)
It may have been a natural process back then, but it still proves nothing that humans didnt cause the global warming.

My arguments why the global warming is caused by humans:
1. The temperature
I mean look at the temperature. The temperature is higher (nearly double) then it was back then. It proves beyond the doubt that the atmosphere has thicken. Not to mention that the CO2 emission was high back then with the new technology and industralization.

2. The CO2 emissions
The moment they found out about the Global Warming, the CO2 emission was decreased. A year there after, the temperature went down too. Not to mention that the big hole of the atmosphere in Australia has also been smallen.
It proves beyond a doubt that it was caused by humans.

I await the response of my opponent.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.socialtext.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Andromeda_Z

Con

First, i thank my opponent for this debate, may the best win."
Thanks for debating with me.

"Cant really refute this one, this one is true. If CO2 wasnt there, the atmosphere would be so thin, that we all would be roasted and life on earth would be impossible. But this argument says nothing about humans not causing the global warming. Aside from humans, the CO2 emission alone from nature doesnt cause global warming."
Actually, the CO2 is what keeps the heat in. It's called the greenhouse effect (1), the CO2 in the atmosphere is like the plastic wrap on microwaved leftovers. It lets the microwaves in, but traps the steam from the warm food. We wouldn't be roasted from a lack of CO2, and the atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's gravity(2). The Earth would actually be very cold without CO2.

"Uhm, we wont be happy if the ice age comes again >.<
But ice ages wont just come because it wants to, there was always a cause. (meteorite strikes, etc.)
It may have been a natural process back then, but it still proves nothing that humans didnt cause the global warming."
I agree, another ice age would be a very bad thing. I never said there wasn't a cause to any of the ice ages, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that, or how an ice age would "want" to happen. If it was a natural process back then (you didn't say when, exactly), it shows a pattern. The pattern would suggest that global warming would again be caused by a natural process.

"1. The temperature
I mean look at the temperature. The temperature is higher (nearly double) then it was back then. It proves beyond the doubt that the atmosphere has thicken. Not to mention that the CO2 emission was high back then with the new technology and industralization."
The temperature is nearly double of what it was when? How exactly does that prove the atmosphere has thickened? And, although emissions from an increase in technology can contribute to an increase in temperature, you don't say how this proves global warming is entirely our fault.

"2. The CO2 emissions
The moment they found out about the Global Warming, the CO2 emission was decreased. A year there after, the temperature went down too. Not to mention that the big hole of the atmosphere in Australia has also been smallen.
It proves beyond a doubt that it was caused by humans."
That does not prove that global warming is caused by humans, only that we can do something about it.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
dinokiller

Pro

For now, i drop most of the sources since its all coming from the same source.

DEFENSE;*Slams desk*

Actually, the CO2 is what keeps the heat in. It's called the greenhouse effect (1), the CO2 in the atmosphere is like the plastic wrap on microwaved leftovers. It lets the microwaves in, but traps the steam from the warm food. We wouldn't be roasted from a lack of CO2, and the atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's gravity(2). The Earth would actually be very cold without CO2.

The atmosphere has actually 2 effects on the warmth.
The first one is that it reduces the warmth that gets inside earth, just as i said, we will be roasted if this didnt happen.
The second one is that it keeps the warmth inside for a set period of time and then they will be released from the atmosphere. However the atmosphere thickness at the start doesnt cause the bad effects of global warming to happen as i said.

COUNTER;*Points finger in your direction*

1. The temperature is nearly double of what it was when? How exactly does that prove the atmosphere has thickened? And, although emissions from an increase in technology can contribute to an increase in temperature, you don't say how this proves global warming is entirely our fault.

It seems you do ignore my sources, if u readed it, the warmth began to rise in the year 18's
Thats around the same time when the Industralization began.
The industralization is the start of the increased emissions of CO2 and other gasses.
So it proves our fault.

2. That does not prove that global warming is caused by humans, only that we can do something about it.

Before you actually do something about, you must locate the cause of it. Many suspected that the gas emissions were the causes and so the emissions were lowered. The effects of global warmth has been lowered slightly.
Now, you say that we can do something about it, but its not our fault. Then how do you explain that we fixed the global warming because we lowered the emissions? In short, we caused the global warmings bad side effect.

I await my opponent's response

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Andromeda_Z

Con

"The atmosphere has actually 2 effects on the warmth.
The first one is that it reduces the warmth that gets inside earth, just as i said, we will be roasted if this didnt happen.
The second one is that it keeps the warmth inside for a set period of time and then they will be released from the atmosphere. However the atmosphere thickness at the start doesnt cause the bad effects of global warming to happen as i said."
Technically, only half of the planet would be roasted without CO2, while the other half is frozen, so I think we could both be right about that. Only half of the planet would be facing the sun at any given time. The atmosphere isn't actually thickening, though, it's the composition of gases that changes. There is an increase in CO2 that causes the higher global temperatures. That would mean that the rise in CO2 does cause the global warming to happen.

"It seems you do ignore my sources, if u readed it, the warmth began to rise in the year 18's
Thats around the same time when the Industralization began.
The industralization is the start of the increased emissions of CO2 and other gasses.
So it proves our fault."
I apologize, I didn't realize that information was contained in the source instead of the argument itself. Your reasoning is sound until you get to the point where you say that this proves global warming is our fault. I mentioned the ice caps earlier in this debate, they were already melting before the Industrial Revolution took place. While I don't doubt that it drastically increased the rate and scale of warming, in order for this to prove that global warming was caused by industrialization, the warming would have to have began after or at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, which isn't the case.

"Before you actually do something about, you must locate the cause of it. Many suspected that the gas emissions were the causes and so the emissions were lowered. The effects of global warmth has been lowered slightly.
Now, you say that we can do something about it, but its not our fault. Then how do you explain that we fixed the global warming because we lowered the emissions? In short, we caused the global warmings bad side effect."
I disagree with your first sentence, because it is possible to attempt to solve a problem without knowing the cause of it, such as in the case of a leaking pipe. You can go shut the water off to stop the leak, and then locate the cause (the hole in the pipe) and repair it. We did not fix the global warming, we reduced its' impact. We reduce the effects of things we did not cause frequently, such is the case with providing aid after a hurricane or cleaning up a mess made by a puppy. Those problems were not created by humans, but they don't need to be for us to do something about it.
dinokiller

Pro

"Technically, only half of the planet would be roasted without CO2, while the other half is frozen, so I think we could both be right about that. Only half of the planet would be facing the sun at any given time. The atmosphere isn't actually thickening, though, it's the composition of gases that changes. There is an increase in CO2 that causes the higher global temperatures. That would mean that the rise in CO2 does cause the global warming to happen."

And where did the CO2 come from then? Sure it didnt suddenly appear out of nowhere.
Its from the factories of course.
The factories at this moment has the nr. 1 CO2 emission.

"I apologize, I didn't realize that information was contained in the source instead of the argument itself. Your reasoning is sound until you get to the point where you say that this proves global warming is our fault. I mentioned the ice caps earlier in this debate, they were already melting before the Industrial Revolution took place. While I don't doubt that it drastically increased the rate and scale of warming, in order for this to prove that global warming was caused by industrialization, the warming would have to have began after or at the same time as the Industrial Revolution, which isn't the case."

It is already proven.
If you checked the statistics, you will notice how the warmth rate suddenly rised so fast at the year 1800.
Heres the statistics again: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I disagree with your first sentence, because it is possible to attempt to solve a problem without knowing the cause of it, such as in the case of a leaking pipe. You can go shut the water off to stop the leak, and then locate the cause (the hole in the pipe) and repair it. We did not fix the global warming, we reduced its' impact. We reduce the effects of things we did not cause frequently, such is the case with providing aid after a hurricane or cleaning up a mess made by a puppy. Those problems were not created by humans, but they don't need to be for us to do something about it."

This argument is based on IF we hadnt caused the global warming.
The high CO2 emissions, the industralization, its all too obvious to be a coincidence.
Like i said, factories shoots out CO2, the atmosphere suddenly thickens.
We reduced the CO2 emission by lowering the factories, etc usage.
The atmosphere thinned and the global warming effect is reduced.
The factories are made by us humans, so it proves we are the cause.

Note: I could also chose a different thing like a car, it shoots out CO2 too.

Its proven that we caused the global warming, so vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Lol, english is hard.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
Volcanoes put out more CO2 than humans do, lol.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
But i think im gonna take this debate as Pro lol.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
So if a thunderbolt strucks down a tree causing it to burn which in turn causes a forest fire, its the humans fault now? The burn shoots out alot of CO2 and the destruction of the woods lessens the CO2 to oxygen converting.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
A small part of global warming is due to a cyclic process, however the majority of it is anthropomorphic. However from that you have already lost the debate.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Just a heads up; I don't think you're likely to get any competent takers on this resolution. The burden of proof is too unreasonable. You might want to consider changing it to "the most significant cause of global warming is anthropogenic".
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
Andromeda_ZdinokillerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't prove that Global warming was caused ENTIRELY by humans.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Andromeda_ZdinokillerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was virtually impossible for Pro to win, because he would have to prove that nothing else contributed to global warming. The earth has been warming since about 1800, well before human CO2 was a factor. In geological times, CO2 was ten times the present, so clearly there are natural sources. till, con argued weakly and would not have won if he had the burden of proof. Much of the debate was about irrelevancies. Con is right about the green house effect.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Andromeda_ZdinokillerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not even seem to understand Con's argument, it was not that we did not contribute but that we are not the only factor.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Andromeda_ZdinokillerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was virtually impossible for Pro to win, because he would have to prove that nothing else contributed to global warming. The earth has been warming since about 1800, well before human CO2 was a factor. In geological times, CO2 was ten times the present, so clearly there are natural sources. till, con argued weakly and would not have won if he had the burden of proof. Much of the debate was about irrelevancies. Con is right about the green house effect.